opinion
stringlengths 209
218k
| instruction
stringclasses 171
values | question
stringclasses 167
values | choices
sequencelengths 0
311
| answer
sequencelengths 1
1
| source
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., v. UNITED STATES.
No. 23.
Argued November 8, 1962.
Decided January 14, 1963
David W. Peck argued the cause and filed briefs for Pan American World Airways, Inc., appellant in No. 23 and appellee in No. 47.
Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Assistant Attor ney General Loevinger, Bruce J. Terris and Robert B. Hummel.
Lawrence J. McKay argued the cause for W. R. Grace & Co., appellee in No. 47. With him on the briefs were William E. Hegarty and Raymond L. Falls, Jr.
Together with No. 47, United States v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., et al., also on appeal from the same Court.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a civil suit brought by the United States charging violations by Pan American, W. R. Grace & Co., and Panagra of §§ 1, 2, and 3 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2, and 3. This suit, which the Civil Aeronautics Board requested the Attorney General to institute, charged two major restraints of trade. First, it is charged that Pan American and Grace, each of whom owns 50% of the stock of Panagra, formed the latter under an agreement that Panagra would have the exclusive right to traffic along the west coast of South America free from Pan American competition and that Pan American was to be free from competition of Panagra in other areas in South America and between the Canal Zone and the United States. Second, it is charged that Pan American and Grace conspired to monopolize and did monopolize air commerce between the eastern coastal areas of the United States and western coastal areas of South America and Buenos Aires. Pan American was also charged with using its 50% control over Panagra to prevent it from securing authority from the C. A. B. to extend its route from the Canal Zone to the United States.
In 1928, when Pan American and Grace entered into an agreement to form Panagra, air transportation was in its infancy; and this was the first entry of an American air carrier on South America’s west coast. Pan American in 1930 acquired .the assets of an airline competing with it for air traffic from this country to the north and east coasts of South America and received a Post Office air mail subsidy contract.
The District Court found that there was no violation by Pan American and Grace of § 1 of the Sherman Act through the division of South American territory between Pan American and Panagra. It held, however, that Pan American violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by suppressing Panagra’s efforts to extend its route from the Canal Zone to this country' — -in particular, by blocking Panagra’s application to the Civil Aeronautics Board for a certificate for operation north of the Canal Zone. It indicated that Pan American should divest itself of Panagra stock. But it directed dismissal of the complaint against Grace and against Panagra, holding that none of their respective practices violated the Sherman Act. 193 F. Supp. 18. Both Pan American and the United States come here on direct appeals (15 U. S. C. § 29); and we postponed the question of jurisdiction to the merits. 368 U. S. 964, 966.
When the transactions, now challenged as restraints of trade and monopoly, were first consummated, air carriers were not subject to pervasive regulation. In 1938 the Civil Aeronautics Act (52 Stat. 973) was passed which was superseded in 1958 by the Federal Aviation Act, 72 Stat. 731, 49 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., the latter making no changes relevant to our present problem. Since 1938, the industry has been regulated under a regime designed to change the prior competitive system. As stated in S. Rep. No. 1661, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 2, “Competition among air carriers is being carried to an extreme, which tends to jeopardize the financial status of the air carriers and to jeopardize and render unsafe a transportation service appropriate to the needs of commerce and required in the public interest, in the interests of the Postal Service, and of the national defense.”
Some provisions of the 1938 Act deal only with the future, not the past. Such, for example, are the provisions dealing with abandonment of routes (§401 (k)), with loans or financial aid from the United States (§ 410), and with criminal penalties. § 902. The Act, however, did not freeze the status quo nor attempt to legalize all existing practices. Thus § 401 requires every “air carrier” to acquire a certificate from the Board, a procedure being provided whereby some could obtain “grandfather” rights. By § 401 (h) the Board has authority to alter, amend, modify, or suspend certificates whenever it finds such action to be in the public interest.
Section 409, in regulating interlocking relations between air carriers and other1 common carriers or between air carriers and those “engaged in any phase of aeronautics,” looks not only to the future but to the past as well. For the prohibition is that no air carrier may “have and retain” officers or directors of the described classes. Section 408, which is directed at consolidations, mergers, and acquisition of control over an “air carrier,” makes it unlawful, unless approved by the Board, for any “common carrier” to “purchase, lease, or contract to operate the properties” of an “air carrier” or to “acquire control of any air carrier in any manner whatsoever” or to “continue to maintain any relationship established in violation of any of the foregoing” provisions of §408 (a). By § 408 (b) a common carrier is taken to be an “air carrier” for the purposes of § 408; and transactions that link “common carriers” to “air carriers” shall not be approved unless the Board finds that “the transaction proposed will promote the public interest by enabling such carrier other than an air carrier to use aircraft to public advantage in its operation and will not restrain competition.” We do not suggest that Grace, a common carrier, need get the Board’s approval to continue the relationship it had with Panagra when the 1938 Act became effective. It is clear, however, that the Board under § 411 of the 1958 Act has jurisdiction over “unfair practices” and “unfair methods of competition” even though they originated prior to 1938.
That section provides:
“The Board may, upoh its own initiative or upon complaint by any air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent, if it considers that such action by it would be in the interest of the public, investigate and determine whether any air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent has been or is engaged in unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in air transportation or the sale thereof. If the Board shall find, after notice and hearing, that such air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent is engaged in such unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition, it shall order such air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent to cease and desist from such practices or methods of competition.” (Italics added.) 49 U. S. C. § 1381.
The words “has been or is engaged in unfair . . . practices or unfair methods of competition” plainly include practices started before the 1938 Act and continued thereafter as well as practices instituted after the effective date of the Act.
The parentage of § 411 is established. As the Court stated in American Airlines v. North American Airlines, 351 U. S. 79, 82, this section was patterned after § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and “[w]e may profitably look to judicial interpretation of § 5 as an aid in the resolution of . . . questions raised . . . under § 411.” As respects the “public interest” under § 411, the Court said:
“. . . the air carriers here conduct their business under a regulated system of limited competition. The business so conducted is of especial and essential concern to the public, as is true of all common carriers and public utilities. Finally, Congress has committed the regulation of this industry to an administrative agency of special competence that deals only with the problems of the industry.” Id., 84.
The Board in regulating air carriers is to deal with at least some antitrust problems. Apart from its power under § 411, it is given authority by §§ 408 and 409, as already noted, over consolidations, mergers, purchases, leases, operating contracts, acquisition of control of an air carrier, and interlocking relations. Pooling and other like arrangements are under the Board’s jurisdiction by reason of § 412. Any person affected by an order under §§ 408, 409 and 412 is “relieved from the operations of the 'antitrust laws,’ ” including the Sherman Act. § 414. The Clayton Act, insofar as it is applicable to air carriers, is enforceable by the Board. 52 Stat. 973,1028, § 1107 (g) ; 15 U. S. C. § 21.
There are various indications in the legislative history that the Civil Aeronautics Board was to have broad jurisdiction over air carriers, insofar as most facets of federal control are concerned.
The House Report stated:
“It is the purpose of this legislation to coordinate in a single independent agency all of the existing functions of the Federal Government with respect to civil aeronautics, and, in addition, to authorize the new agency to perform certain new regulatory functions which are designed to stabilize the air-transportation industry in the United States.” H. R. Rep. No. 2254, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 1.
No mention is made of the Department of Justice and its role in the enforcement of the antitrust laws, yet we hesitate here, as in comparable situations, to hold that the new regulatory scheme adopted in 1938 was designed completely to displace the antitrust laws- — -absent an unequivocally declared congressional purpose so to do. While the Board is empowered to deal with numerous aspects of what are normally thought of as antitrust problems, those expressly entrusted to it encompass only a fraction of the total. Apart from orders which give immunity from the antitrust laws by reason of § 414, the whole criminal law enforcement problem remains unaffected by the Act. Cf. United States v. Pacific & Arctic Co., 228 U. S. 87, 105. Moreover, on the civil side violations of antitrust laws other than those enumerated in the Act might be imagined. We, therefore, refuse to hold that there are no antitrust violations left to the Department of Justice to enforce.
That does not, however, end our inquiry. Limitation of routes and divisions of territories and the relation of common carriers to air carriers are basic in this regulatory scheme. The acts charged in this civil suit as antitrust violations are precise ingredients of the Board's authority in granting, qualifying, or denying certificates to air carriers, in modifying, suspending, or revoking them, and in allowing or disallowing affiliations between common carriers and air carriers. The case is therefore quite unlike Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., supra, where a conspiracy among carriers for the fixing of through and joint rates was held to constitute a cause of action under the antitrust laws, in view of the fact that the Interstate Commerce Commission had no power to grant relief against such combinations. And see United States v. R. C. A., 358 U. S. 334, 346. And the present Act does not have anything comparable to the history of the Cap-per-Volstead Act, which we reviewed in Milk Producers Assn. v. United States, 362 U. S. 458, and which showed that farmer-producers were not made immune from the class of predatory practices charged in that civil suit as antitrust violations. Id., pp. 464-467.
The words “unfair . . . practices” and “unfair methods of competition” as used in § 411 contain a “broader” concept than “the common-law idea of unfair competition.” American Airlines v. North American Airlines, supra, 85. They derive, as already noted, from the Federal Trade Commission Act; and their meaning in the setting of that Act has been much discussed. They do not embrace a remedy for private wrongs but only a means of vindicating the public interest. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Klesner, 280 U. S. 19, 25-30. The scope of “unfair practices” and “unfair methods of competition” was left for case-by-case definition. The Senate Report stated:
“It is believed that the term ‘unfair competition’ has a legal significance which can be enforced by the commission and the courts, and that it is no more difficult to determine what is unfair competition than it is to determine what is a reasonable rate or what is an unjust discrimination. The committee was of the opinion that it would be better to put in a general provision condemning unfair competition than to attempt to define the numerous unfair practices, such as local price cutting, interlocking directorates, and holding companies intended to restrain substantial competition.” S. Rep. No. 597, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 13.
The legislative history was reviewed in Federal Trade Comm’n v. Raladam Co., 283 U. S. 643, 649-650, the Court concluding that “unfair competition was that practice which destroys competition and establishes monopoly.” Id., 650. The provision was designed to supplement the Sherman Act by stopping “in their incipiency those methods of competition which fall within the meaning of the word ‘unfair.’ . . . All three statutes [the Sherman and Clayton Acts and § 5] seek to protect the public from abuses arising in the course of competitive interstate and foreign trade.” Id., 647. See Federal Trade Comm’n v. Beech-Nut Co., 257 U. S. 441, 453-454; Federal Trade Comm’n v. Keppel & Bro., 291 U. S. 304, 310-312; 2 Toulmin’s Anti-Trust Laws (1949) §43.6. Joint ventures may be combinations in violation of the antitrust laws. Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United States, 341 U. S. 593, 598. Whatever the unfair practice or unfair method employed, § 411 of this Act, like § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (Federal Trade Comm’n v. Motion Picture Adv. Co., 344 U. S. 392, 394-395), was designed to bolster and strengthen antitrust enforcement.
We have said enough to indicate that the words “unfair practices” and “unfair methods of competition” are not limited to precise practices that can readily be catalogued. They take their meaning from the facts of each case and the impact of particular practices on competition and monopoly.
These words, transferred to the Civil Aeronautics Act, gather meaning from the context of that particular regulatory measure and the type of competitive regime which it visualizes. Cf. American Power Co. v. Securities & Exchange Comm’n, 329 U. S. 90, 104—105. That regime has its special standard of the “public interest” as defined by Congress. The standards to be applied by the Board in enforcing the Act are broadly stated in § 2:
“In the exercise and performance of its powers and duties under this chapter, the Board shall consider the following, among other things, as being in the public interest, and in accordance with the public convenience and necessity—
“(a) The encouragement and development of an air-transportation system properly adapted to the present and future needs of the foreign and domestic commerce of the United States, of the Postal Service, and of the national defense;
“(b) The regulation of air transportation in such manner as to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of, assure the highest degree of safety in, and foster sound economic conditions in, such transportation, and to improve the relations between, and coordinate transportation by, air carriers;
“(c) The promotion of adequate, economical, and efficient service by air carriers at reasonable charges, without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive competitive practices ;
“(d) Competition to the extent necessary to assure the sound development of an air-transportation system properly adapted to the needs of the foreign and domestic commerce of the United States, of the Postal Service, and of the national defense;
“(e) The regulation of air commerce in such manner as to best promote its development and safety; and “(f) The encouragement and development of civil aeronautics.” 52 Stat. 980. And see 49 U. S. C. § 1302.
The “present and future needs” of our foreign and domestic commerce, regulations that foster “sound economic conditions,” the promotion of service free of “unfair or destructive competitive practices,” regulations that produce the proper degree of “competition” — each of these is pertinent to the problems arising under § 411.
It would be strange, indeed, if a division of territories or an allocation of routes which met the requirements of the “public interest” as defined in § 2 were held to be antitrust violations. It would also be odd to conclude that an affiliation between a common carrier and an air carrier that passed muster under § 408 should run afoul of the antitrust laws. Whether or not transactions of that character meet the standards of competition and monopoly provided by the Act is peculiarly a question for the Board, subject of course to judicial review as provided in 49 U. S. C. § 1486. Cf. Federal Maritime Bd. v. Isbrandtsen Co., 356 U. S. 481; Schaffer Transportation Co. v. United States, 355 U. S. 83.
In case of a prospective application of the Act, the Board’s order, as noted, would give the carrier immunity from antitrust violations “insofar as may be necessary to enable such person to do anything authorized, approved, or required by such order.” § 414. Alternatively, the Board under § 411 can investigate and bring to a halt all “unfair . . . practices” and all “unfair methods of competition,” including those which started prior to the Act. If the courts were to intrude independently with their construction of the antitrust laws, two regimes might collide. Furthermore, many of the problems presented by this case, which involves air routes to and in foreign countries, may involve military and foreign policy considerations that the Act, as construed by a majority of the Court in Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103, subjects to presidential rather than judicial review. It seems to us, therefore, that the Act leaves to the Board under § 411 all questions of injunctive relief against the division of territories or the allocation of routes or against combinations between common carriers and air carriers. See Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426; Keogh v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 260 U. S. 156.
The fact that transactions occurring before 1938 are involved in this case does not change our conclusion. The past is prologue and the impact of pre-1938 transactions on present problems of air carriers is eloquently demonstrated in a recent order of the Board concerning the United States flag carrier route pattern between this country and South America which is set forth in part in the Appendix to this opinion. The status of Panagra— jointly owned by Pan American and Grace — is central to that problem, as that order makes clear. What was done in the pre-1938 days may be so disruptive of the regime visualized by the Act or so out of harmony with the statutory standards for competition set by the Act that it should be undone in proceedings under § 411. The transactions in question are reached by the terms of § 411. But more important, the particular relation of this problem to the general process of encouraging development of new fields of air transportation makes it all the more appropriate that the Board should decide whether these particular transactions should be undone in whole or in part, or whether they should be allowed to continue.
It is suggested that the power of the Board to issue a “cease and desist” order is not broad enough to include the power to compel divestiture and that in any event its power to do so under § 411 runs solely to air carriers, not to common carriers or other stockholders. We do not read the Act so restrictively. The Board has no power to award damages or to bring criminal prosecutions. Nor does it, as already noted, have jurisdiction over every antitrust violation by air carriers. But where the problem lies within the purview of the Board, as do questions of division of territories, the allocation of routes, and the affiliation of common carriers with air carriers, Congress must have intended to give it authority that was ample to deal with the evil at hand.
We need not now determine the ultimate scope of the Board’s power to order divestiture under § 411. It seems clear that such power exists at least with respect to the particular problems involved in this case. Of principal importance here, we think, is the fact that the Board could have retained such power over these transactions, if they had occurred after 1938, by so conditioning its grant of approval. The terms of § 411 do not distinguish between conduct before or after that date. If the Act is to be administered as a coherent whole, we think § 411 must include an equivalent power over pre-enactment events of the kind involved in this case — although, of course, the Board might find that the historic background of these pre-1938 transactions introduces different considerations in formulating a suitable resolution of the problem involved.
We think the narrow questions presented by this complaint have been entrusted to the Board and that the complaint should have been dismissed. Accordingly we reverse the judgment and remand the case for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan, see post, p. 319.]
Another charge relates to alleged restraints on Panagra by its two stockholders which the District Court summarized as follows:
“To a large extent the evidence of restraints on Panagra in the categories of joint offices, communications, equipment, publicity and sales are matters of agreement that must be initially approved by the C. A. B. and to a large degree have been approved and others are awaiting approval or extension of approval previously granted.” 193 F. Supp. 18, 22.
Panagra was organized January 25, 1929, and received on March 2, 1929, an air mail contract from the Postmaster General (see 45 Stat. 248, 1449) even though it was not the lowest bidder. See 36 Op. Atty. Gen. 33.
The District Court said:
“The award of a Post Office contract for each sector of South America, in effect, assured the American contractor of a monopoly in that sector insofar as American flag operations were concerned, and the invaluable assistance of the State Department and Post Office Department in the carrier’s relations with the countries along its route.” 193 F. Supp. 18, 31.
The District Court said:
“The State Department actively assisted defendants in defeating the foreign company designs for monopoly concessions and in securing American operating rights along their routes. The contracts awarded by the Post Office Department defined the international route of the contractor, and so to a large extent defined the area of development and expansion of any such contractor. The Post Office policy during the years 1928 to 1938 was to award but one contract for each route, in effect to subsidize one American carrier in a particular sector. The ideal route pattern as envisaged by the C. A. B. today is to have two carriers, Pan American and a merged ‘Panagra-Braniff,’ and the only difference from that existing prior to Braniff’s entry would be the extension of ‘Panagra-Braniff’ to the United States. Competition among American carriers under the policy of the Post Office Department under the foreign mail contracts, was economically impossible, and most likely detrimental to the sound development of American flag service, which would have complicated or embarrassed the effective 'rendition of diplomatic assistance from the State Department, and actually cause a waste of public monies. Competition between Panagra and Pan American certainly was not encouraged by this government. On the contrary, there appears to emerge from the evidence presented a definite policy of the government approving a sort of 'zoning’ for the operations of the American international carriers in the nature of east and west coast spheres as was ultimately arranged between Pan American and Panagra. Agreement not to parallel each other’s service in South America seems perfectly consistent with the air transportation policy of this country in those formative years.” 193 P. Supp. 18, 34.
See Panagra Terminal Investigation, 4 C. A. B. 670, remanded, W. R. Grace & Co. v. C. A. B., 154 F. 2d 271. We granted certiorari, 328 U. S. 832, and later dismissed the case as moot, 332 U. S. 827, because Pan American and Panagra had settled their dispute through an agreement approved by the C. A. B. (see note 15, infra), after the C. A. B. had said that joint control of Panagra by Pan American and Grace was “unhealthy” (4 C. A. B. 670, 678) and that “the joint owners cooperatively should enable Panagra to apply for access to the east coast of the United States.” Additional Service to Latin America, 6 C. A. B. 857, 914.
The Board has held that § 408 (a) is not retroactive. Railroad Control of Northeast Airlines, 4 C. A. B. 379, 386. And see National Air Freight Forward. Corp. v. C. A. B., 90 U. S. App. D. C. 330, 335, 197 F. 2d 384, 389.
The Sherman Act was applied to pre-1890 combinations: United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U. S. 290, 342; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1), 212 U. S. 86, 107-108 (Texas version of the Sherman Act); see also Cox v. Hart, 260 U. S. 427, 435; American P. & L. Co. v. Securities & Exchange Comm’n, 141 F. 2d 606, 625 (C. A. 1st Cir.), affirmed, 329 U. S. 90.
Moreover, as we recently stated in United States v. duPont & Co., 353 U. S. 586, 607, “. . . the test of a violation of § 7 is whether, at the time of suit, there is a reasonable probability that the acquisition is likely to result in the condemned restraints.” (Italics added.)
The original Act took out from under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, “air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.” 52 Stat. 973, 1028, § 1107(f).
Cf. Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U. S. 439, holding that the Interstate Commerce Act is no bar to an antitrust suit against a carrier; United States v. R. C. A., 358 U. S. 334, holding that the Federal Communications Act is no bar to an antitrust suit against TV and radio licensees; United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 195-199, holding that neither the Agricultural Adjustment Act nor the Capper-Volstead Act displaced the Sherman Act; and California v. Federal Power Comm’n, 369 U. S. 482, holding that the Clayton Act was not displaced by the Natural Gas Act. And see Milk Producers Assn. v. United States, 362 U. S. 458.
In Pan American-Matson-Inter-1stand Contract, 3 C. A. B. 540, the Board rejected a proposal for the creation of a joint company similar to Panagra for service to Hawaii. Such joint ventures, as we note in the opinion, may be combinations in violation of the antitrust laws. See Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United States, 341 U. S. 593, 598.
It should be noted that the result in Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., supra, might today be different as a result of the Act of June 17, 1948, 62 Stat. 472, which gives the Interstate Commerce Commission authority to approve, combinations of the character involved in that case and give them immunity from the antitrust laws. See S. Rep. No. 1511, 79th Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1212, 79th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1100, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. This Act was passed over a presidential veto. See 94 Cong. Rec. 8435, 8633.
And see the debates in 51 Cong. Rec. 11874-11876; 12022-12025; 12026-12032
We note, in addition, that the Board itself has assumed jurisdiction under changed circumstances in those areas covered by §408, in which it has found only prospective authority. Railroad Control of Northeast Airlines, supra, note 6.
An “air carrier” is defined in § 1 (2) as “any citizen of the United States who undertakes, whether directly or indirectly or by a lease or any other arrangement, to engage in air transportation: Provided, That the Authority may by order relieve air carriers who are not directly engaged in the operation of aircraft in air transportation from the provisions of this Act to the extent and for such periods as may be in the public interest.” Whether there might be “a reasonable basis in law” (Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U. S. 111, 131) for a Board conclusion that Grace is an “air carrier” by reason of its negative control over Panagra is a matter on which we intimate no view. We mention the matter so as not to foreclose the question by any implication drawn from our separate treatment of common carriers and air carriers.
Phases of issues related to those in the present litigation have indeed been before the Board. Note 5, supra. It held in an investigation that it had no authority to accomplish the compulsory extension of Panagra’s route to the United States (Panagra Terminal Investigation, 4 C. A. B. 670), a ruling reviewed by the Court of Appeals which remanded the matter to the Board for further consideration. W. R. Grace & Co. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 154 F. 2d 271. Before that controversy had been resolved, Pan American and Panagra entered a “through flight agreement” which in essence provided that Pan American would charter any aircraft operated by Panagra from the south to the Canal Zone and operate it on its schedules to the United States. This agreement, with exceptions not material here, was approved by the Board. Pan American-Panagra Agreement, 8 C. A. B. 50.
For a discussion of the Board’s policy in issuing certificates to competing air carriers, see Hale and Hale, Competition or Control IV: Air Carriers, 109 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 311, 314r-318.
We have heretofore analogized the power of administrative agencies to fashion appropriate relief to the power of courts to fashion Sherman Act decrees. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Mandel Bros., 359 U. S. 385, 392-393. Authority to mold administrative decrees is indeed like the authority of courts to frame injunctive decrees (Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co., 312 U. S. 426, 433, 436; Labor Board v. Cheney Lumber Co., 327 U. S. 385) subject of course to judicial review. Dissolution of unlawful combinations, when based on appropriate findings (Schine Theatres v. United States, 334 U. S. 110, 129-130), is an historic remedy in the antitrust field, even though not expressly authorized. United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U. S. 173, 189. Likewise, the power to order divestiture need not be explicitly included in the powers of an administrative agency to be part of its arsenal of authority, as we held only the other day in Gilbertville Trucking Co. v. United States, 371 U. S. 115. Cf. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Eastman Kodak Co., 274 U. S. 619.
There is no express authority for divestiture in either the Sherman or Clayton Act. See 15 U. S. C. §§ 4, 25. The reasoning that supports such a remedy under those Acts is as applicable to the Board as it is to the courts, and it is as valid today as it was when originally stated by the first Justice Harlan:
“All will agree that if the . . . Act be constitutional, and if the combination in question be in violation of its provisions, the courts may enforce the provisions of the statute by such orders and decrees as are necessary or appropriate to that end and as may be consistent with the fundamental rules of legal procedure.” Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 344.
If it were clear that there was a remedy in this civil antitrust suit that was not available in a § 411 proceeding before the C. A. B., we would have the kind of problem presented in Hewitt-Robins Inc. v. Eastern Freight-Ways, Inc., ante, p. 84, where litigation is held by a court until the basic facts and findings are first determined by the administrative agency, so that the judicial remedy, not available in the other proceeding, can be granted. Nor is this a case where a proceeding before a second tribunal is desirable (Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 309 U. S. 478) or necessary (General Am. Tank Car Corp. v. El Dorado Terminal Co., 308 U. S. 422; Thompson v. Texas Mexican R. Co., 328 U. S. 134, 150-151) for an authoritative determination of a legal question controlling in the first tribunal.
Dismissal of antitrust suits, where an administrative remedy has superseded the judicial one, is the usual course. See United States Nav. Co. v. Cunard S. S. Co., 284 U. S. 474; Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U. S. 570, 577. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. 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. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations | What is the ideological direction of the decision reviewed by the Supreme Court? | [
"Conservative",
"Liberal",
"Unspecifiable"
] | [
1
] | sc |
KADRMAS et al. v. DICKINSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS et al.
No. 86-7113.
Argued March 30, 1988
Decided June 24, 1988
O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and White, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Marshall, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan, J., joined, post, p. 466. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Blackmun, J., joined, post, p. 472.
Duane Houdek argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Edward B. Reinhardt, Jr.
George T. Dynes argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees.
Nicholas J. Spaeth, Attorney General, argued the cause for the State of North Dakota as amicus ■ curiae urging af-firmance. With him on the brief was Laurie J. Loveland, Assistant Attorney General.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation et al. by C. Edwin Baker, John A. Powell, Helen Hershkoff, Steven R. Shapiro, and Robert Vogel; and for the Children’s Defense Fund et al. by Julius L. Chambers and John Charles Boger.
Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Reynolds, Deputy Solicitor General Ayer, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Clegg, Paul J. Larkin, Jr., and David K. Flynn filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. .
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants urge us to hold that the Equal Protection Clause forbids a State to allow some local school boards, but not others, to assess a fee for transporting pupils between their homes and the public schools. Applying well-established equal protection principles, we reject this claim and affirm the constitutionality of the challenged statute.
HH
North Dakota is a sparsely populated State, with many people living on isolated farms and ranches. One result has been that some children, as late as the mid-20th century, were educated in “the one-room school where, in many cases, there [we]re twenty or more pupils with one teacher attempting in crowded conditions and under other disadvantages to give instructions in all primary grades.” Herman v. Medicine Lodge School Dist. No. 8, 71 N. W. 2d 323, 328 (N.D. 1955). The State has experimented with various ameliorative devices at different times in its history. Beginning in 1907, for example, it has adopted a series of policies that “in certain circumstances required and in other circumstances merely authorized [local public] school districts to participate in transporting or providing compensation for transporting students to school.” 402 N. W. 2d 897, 900 (N.D. 1987) (opinion below).
Since 1947, the legislature has authorized and encouraged thinly populated school districts to consolidate or “reorganize” themselves into larger districts so that education can be provided more efficiently. See Herman, supra, at 328; N.D. Cent. Code, ch. 15-27.3 (Supp. 1987). Reorganization proposals, which obviously must contemplate an increase in the distance that some children travel to school, are required by law to include provisions for transporting students back and forth from their homes. ■ See § 15-27.3-10. The details of tírese provisions may vary from, district to district, but once a reorganization plan is adopted the transportation provisions can be changed only with the approval of the voters. See §§15-27.3-10 and 15-27.3-19.
Appellee Dickinson Public Schools, which serves a relatively populous area, has chosen not to participate in such a reorganization. Until 1973, this school system provided free bus service to students in outlying areas, but the “pickup points” for this service were often at considerable distances from the students’ homes. After a plebiscite of the bus users, Dickinson’s School Board instituted door-to-door bus service and began charging a fee. During the period relevant to this case, about 13% of. the students rode the bus; their parents were charged $97 per year for one child or $150 per year for two children. 402 N. W. 2d, at 898. Such fees covered approximately 11% of the cost of providing the bus service, and the remainder was provided from state and local tax revenues. Ibid.
In 1979, the State enacted the legislation at issue in this case. This statute expressly indicates that nonreorganized school districts, like Dickinson, may charge a fee for transporting students to school; such fees, however, may not exceed the estimated cost to the school district of providing the service. See N. D. Cent. Code §15-34.2-06.1 (1981 and Supp. 1987). The current version of this provision, which for convenience will be referred to as the “1979 statute,” states in full:
“Charge for bus transportation optional. ..The school board of any school district which has not been reorganized may charge a fee for schoolbus service provided to anyone riding on buses provided by the school district. For schoolbus service which was started prior to July 1, 1981, the total fees collected may not exceed an amount equal to the difference between the state transportation payment and the state average cost for transportation or the local school district’s cost, whichever is the lesser amount. For schoolbus service started on or after July 1, 1981, the total fees collected may not exceed an amount equal to the difference between the state transportation payment and the local school district’s cost for transportation during the preceding school year. Any districts that have not previously provided transportation for pupils may establish charges based on costs estimated by the school board during the first year that transportation is provided.”
Appellants are a Dickinson schoolchild, Sarita Kadrmas, and her mother, Paula. The Kadrmas family, which also includes Mrs. Kadrmas’ husband and two preschool children, lives about 16 miles from Sarita’s school. Mr. Kadrmas works sporadically in the North Dakota oil fields, and the family’s annual income at the time of trial was at or near the officially defined poverty level. Until 1985, the Kadrmas family had agreed each year to pay the fee for busing Sarita to school. Having fallen behind on these and other bills, however, the family refused to sign a contract obligating them to pay $97 for the 1985 school year. Accordingly, the school bus no longer stopped for Sarita, and the family arranged to transport her to school privately. The costs they incurred that year for Sarita’s transportation exceeded $1,Q00, or about'10 times the fee charged by the school district for bus service. This arrangement continued until the spring of 1987, when Paula Kadrmas signed a bus service contract for the remainder of the 1986 school year and paid part of the fee. Mrs. Kadrmas later signed another contract for the 1987 school year, and paid about half of the fee for that period.
In September 1985, appellants, along with others who have since withdrawn from the case, filed an action in state court seeking to enjoin appellees — the Dickinson Public Schools and various school district officials — from collecting any fee for the bus service. The action was dismissed on the merits, and an appeal was takén to the Supreme Court of North Dakota. After rejecting a state-law challenge, which is not at issue here., the court considered appellants’ claim that, the busing fee violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court characterized the 1979 statute as “purely economic legislation,” which “must be upheld unless it is patently arbitrary and fails to bear a rational relationship to any legitimate government purpose.” 402 N.'W. 2d, at 902. The court then concluded “that the charges authorized [by the statute] are rationally related to the legitimate governmental objective of allocating limited resources and that the statute does not discriminate on the basis of wealth so as to violate federal or state equal protection, rights.” Id., at 903. The court also rejected the contention that the distinction drawn by the statute between reorganized and nonreorganized school districts violates the Equal Protection Clause. The distinction, the court found, serves the legitimate objective of promoting reorganization “by alleviating parental concerns regarding the cost of student transportation in the reorganized district.” Ibid. Three justices dissented on state-law grounds. We noted probable jurisdiction, 484 U. S. 813 (1987), and now affirm.
J — I HH
A
Before addressing the merits, we must consider appellees’ suggestion that this appeal should be dismissed on procedural grounds. After the decision of the Supreme Court of North Dakota in this case, Mrs. Kadrmas signed two bus service contracts and made partial payment on each. Since the execution of the first contract on April 6, 1987, Sarita has been riding the bus to school, or as appellees put it, “has been continuously enjoying the benefits of such bus service.” Motion to Dismiss 1. Relying on Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U. S. 245 (1947), appellees contend that appellants are “estopped” from pursuing their constitutional claims, because “£i]t is well established that one may not retain benefits of an act while attacking the constitutionality of the same act.” Motion to Dismiss 1-8.
Fahey was a shareholders’ derivative suit in which a savings and loan association created under an Act of Congress sought to challenge the constitutionality of that same Act. This Court refused to consider the challenge, saying: “It would be difficult to imagine a more appropriate situation in which to apply the doctrine that one who utilizes an Act to gain advantages of corporate existence is estopped from questioning the validity of its vital conditions. ” 332 U. S., at 256 (emphasis added). The case before us today is not analogous. Appellants obviously are not creatures of any statute, and we doubt that plaintiffs are generally forbidden to challenge a statute simply because they are deriving some benefit from it. Cf. United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 28-30 (1940); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134, 152-163 (1974) (plurality opinion). The “benefit” derived by appellants from the challenged statute, moreover, is inapparent. The Dickinson School Board’s authority to provide bus transportation is not given by the challenged statute, but by a different provision of state law. See N. D. Cent. Code § 15-34.2-01 (1981). Nor does the 1979 statute itself authorize the tax-supported subsidies that make the Dickinson school bus particularly attractive to parents in outlying areas. The fee that Dickinson is permitted to charge under the 1979 statute is itself a burden rather than a benefit to appellants, and they are not estopped from raising an equal protection challenge to the statute that imposes that burden on them.
Appellees also assert that execution of the bus service contracts rendered this case “moot.” Brief for Appellees 32. Although appellees do not elaborate this contention or distinguish it from the estoppel argument just considered, they may be suggesting the absence of an Article III “case or controversy.” If so, they are mistaken. Appellants claim that the 1979 statute is unconstitutional to the extent that it authorizes Dickinson to charge a fee for bus service, and they seek to prevent such fees from being collected. A decision in their favor might relieve them from paying the balance still owing under the two contracts that were executed in 1987, and would certainly relieve them from future assessments for bus service under the authority of the challenged statute. Because Sarita was only nine years old at the time of trial, and because there are two younger children in the family, the ongoing and concrete nature of the controversy between appellants and the Dickinson Public Schools is readily apparent.
B
• Unless a statute provokes “strict judicial scrutiny” because it interferes with a “fundamental right” or discriminates against a “suspect class,” it will ordinarily survive an equal protection attack so long as the challenged classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. See, e. g., San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 16-17 (1973); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 216-217 (1982); Lyng v. Automobile Workers, 485 U. S. 360, 370 (1988). Appellants contend that Dickinson’s user fee for bus service unconstitutionally deprives those who cannot afford to pay it of “minimum access to education.” See Brief for Appellants i. Sarita Kadrmas, however, continued to attend school during the time that she was denied access to the school bus. Appellants must therefore mean to argue that the busing fee unconstitutionally places a greater obstacle to education in the path of the poor than it does in the path of wealthier families. Alternatively, appellants may mean to suggest that the Equal Protection Clause affirmatively requires government to provide free transportation to school, at least for some class of students that would include 'Sarita Kadrmas.' Under either interpretation of appellants’ position, we are evidently being urged to apply a form of strict or “heightened” scrutiny to the North Dakota statute. • Doing so would require us to extend the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause beyond the limits recognized in our cases, a step we decline to take.
We have previously rejected the suggestion that statutes having different effects on the wealthy and the poor should on that account alone be subjected to strict equal protection scrutiny. See, e. g., Harris v. McRae, 448 U. S. 297, 322-323 (1980); Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U. S. 656, 660 (1973). Nor have we accepted the proposition that education is a “fundamental right,” like equality of the franchise, which should trigger strict scrutiny when government interferes with an individual’s access to it. See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U. S. 265, 284 (1986); Plyler v. Doe, supra, at 223; San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, supra, at 16, 33-36.
Relying primarily on Plyler v. Doe, supra, however, appellants suggest that North Dakota’s 1979 statute should be subjected to “heightened” scrutiny. This standard of review, which is less demanding than “strict scrutiny” but more demanding than the standard rational, relation test, has generally been applied only in . cases that involved discriminatory classifications based on sex or illegitimacy. See, e. g., Clark v. Jeter, 486 U. S. 456, 461 (1988); Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U. S. 718, 723-724, and n. 9 (1982); Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U. S. 91, 101, and n. 8 (1982); Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 197 (1976). In Plyler, which did not fit this pattern, the State of Texas had denied to the children of illegal aliéns the free public education that it made available to other residents. Applying a heightened level of equal protection scrutiny, the Court concluded that the State h'ad failed to show that its classification advanced a substantial state interest. 457 U. S., at 217-218, ánd n. 16, 224, 230. We have not extended this holding beyond the “unique circumstances,” id., at 239 (Powell, J., concurring), that provoked its “unique confluence .of theories and rationales,” id., at 243 (Burger, C. J., dissenting). Nor do we think that the case before us today is governed by the holding in Plyler. Unlike the children in that case, Sarita Kadrmas has not been penalized by the government for illegal conduct by her parents. See id, at 220; id., at 238 (Powell, J., concurring). On the. contrary, Sarita was denied access to the school bus only because her parents would, not agree to pay the same user fee charged to all other families that took advantage of the service. Nor'do we see any reason to suppose that this user fee will “promot[e] the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs' of unemployment,' welfare, and crime’:” Id'., at 239; see also id, at 239 (Powell, J., concurring). Cf. N. D. Cent. Code § 15-43-Í1.2 (1981) (“A [school] board may waive any fee if any pupil or his parent or guardian shall be unable to pay such fees. No pupil’s rights or privileges, including the receipt of grades or diplomas, may be denied or abridged for nonpayment of fees”). The case before us does not resemble Plyler, and we decline to extend the rationale of that decision to cover this case.
Appellants contend, finally, that whatever label is placed on the standard of review, this case is analogous to decisions in which we have held that government may not withhold certain especially important services from those who are unable to pay for them. Appellants cite Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956) (right to appellate review of a criminal conviction conditioned on the purchase of a trial transcript); Smith v. Bennett, 365 U. S. 708 (1961) (application for writ of ha-beas corpus accepted only when accompanied by a filing fee); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371 (1971) (action for dissolution of marriage could be pursued only upon payment of court fees and costs for service of process); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56 (1972) (appeal from civil judgments in certain landlord-tenant disputes conditioned on the posting of a bond for twice the amount of rent expected to accrue during the appellate process); and Little v. Streater, 452 U. S. 1 (1981) (fee for blood test in quasi-criminal paternity action brought against the putative father of a child receiving public assistance). See Brief for Appellants 22-23.
Leaving aside other distinctions that might be found between these cases and the one before us today, each involved a rule that barred indigent litigants from using the judicial process in circumstances where they had no alternative, to that process. Decisions invalidating such rules are inappo-site here. In contrast to the “utter exclusiveness of court access and court remedy,” United States v. Kras, 409 U. S. 434, 445 (1973), North Dakota does not maintain a legal or a practical monopoly on the means of transporting children to school. Thus, unlike the complaining parties in all the cases cited by appellants,, the Kadrmas family could and did find a private alternative to the public school bus service for which Dickinson charged a fee. That alternative was more expensive, to be sure, and we have no reason to doubt that genuine hardships were endured by the Kadrmas family when Sarita was denied access to the bus. Such facts, however, do not imply that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated. In upholding a filing fee for voluntary bankruptcy actions, for example, we observed: “[Bankruptcy is not the only method available to a debtor for the adjustment of his legal relationship with his creditors. . . . However unrealistic the remedy may be in a particular situation, a debtor, in theory, and often in actuality, may adjust his debts by negotiated agreement with his creditors.” Ibid. Similarly, we upheld a statute that required indigents to pay a filing fee for appellate review of adverse welfare benefits decisions. Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U. S. 656 (1973). Noting that the case did not involve a “suspect classification,” we held that the “applicable standard is that of rational justification.” Id., at 660. It is plain that the busing fee in this case more closely resembles the fees that were upheld in Kras and Ortwein than it resembles the fees that were invalidated in the cases on which appellants rely. Those cases therefore do not support the suggestion that North Dakota’s 1979 statute violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Applying the appropriate test — under which a statute is upheld if it bears a rational relation to a legitimate government objective — we think it is quite clear that a State’s decision to allow local school boards the option of charging patrons a user fee for bus service is constitutionally permissible. The Constitution does not require that such service be provided at all, and it is difficult to imagine why choosing to offer the service should entail a constitutional obligation to offer it for free. No one denies that encouraging local school districts to provide school bus service is a legitimate state purpose or that such encouragement would be undermined by a rule requiring that general revenues be used to subsidize an optional service that will benefit a minority of the district’s families. It is manifestly rational for the State to refrain from undermining its legitimate objective with such a rule.
C
Appellants contend that, even without the application of strict or heightened scrutiny, the 1979 statute violates equal protection because it permits user fees for bus service only in nonreorganized school districts. This distinction, they say, can be given no rational justification whatsoever. Brief for Appellants 19-22. The principles governing our review of this claim are well established. “‘The Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit legislation merely because it is special, or limited in its application to a particular geographical or political subdivision of the state.’ Fort Smith Light Co. v. Paving Dist., 274 U. S. 387, 391 (1927). Rather, the Equal Protection Clause is offended only if the statute’s classification ‘rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to thé achievement of the State’s objective.’ McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 425 (1961); Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm'rs, 330 U. S. 552, 556 (1947).” Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa, 439 U. S. 60, 71 (1978). Social and economic legislation like the statute at issue in this case, moreover, “carries with it a presumption of rationality that can only be overcome by a clear showing of arbitrariness and irrationality.” Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U. S. 314, 331-332 (1981). “[W]e will not overturn such a statute unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature’s actions were irrational.” Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93, 97 (1979). In performing this analysis, we are not bound by explanations of the statute’s rationality that may be offered by litigants or other courts. Rather, those challenging the legislative judgment must convince us “that the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decisionmaker.” Id., at 111.
Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that appellants have failed to carry the “heavy burden” of demonstrating that the challenged statute is both arbitrary and irrational. Hodel v. Indiana, supra, at 332. The court below offered the following justification for the distinction drawn between reorganized and nonreorganized districts:
“The obvious purpose of [statutes treating reorganized and nonreorganized schools differently] is to encourage school district reorganization with a concomitant tax base expansion and an enhanced and more effective school system. The legislation provides incentive for the people to approve school district reorganization by alleviating parental concerns regarding the cost of student transportation in the reorganized district.” 402 N. W. 2d, at 903.
Appellees offer a more elaborate, but not incompatible, explanation:
“[TJhe authorization of the bus fee to be charged by districts such as Dickinson has nothing to do with the reorganization, of school districts. The reasoning for it is to simply have the few. that use the service pay a small • portion of that cost in exchange for the substantial benefits received.
“The only reason that the fee authorization was not extended to reorganized districts is that those districts, prior to the passage of the statute permitting fees, were already committed on an individual district basis to some type of transportation system which had been submitted to and approved by the voters in each separate district. To permit the 1979 statute authorizing fees to be retroactively effective in reorganized districts would have been an obvious impairment of existing legal relationships since the already established transportation sys-tertis in the various reorganized districts did not include any authority to charge a fee.” Brief for Appellees 16.
The State of North Dakota informs us that the 1979 legislation was proposed to the legislature by the Dickinson School District itself, which had for several years been charging transportation fees and which “became concerned when it appeared that the 1979 Legislature would enact a statute prohibiting charging the fee.” Brief for State of North Dakota as Amicus Curiae 6-7 (citations to legislative history omitted). The State’s account of the reason for confining the express authorization of fees to nonreorganized schools districts is the same as the account offered by appel-lees. Id., at 9.
The explanation offered by appellees and the State is adequate to rebut appellants’ contention that the distinction drawn between reorganized and nonreorganized districts is arbitrary and irrational. The Supreme Court of North Dakota has said, and the State agrees, that all reorganized school districts are presently required to furnish or pay for transportation for students living as far away from school as Sarita Kadrmas does. See 402 N. W. 2d, at 903 (citing N. D. Cent. Code § 15-27.3-10 (Supp. 1987)); Tr. of Oral Arg. 32. This requirement, however, is not imposed directly by statute, but rather by the reorganization plans that are statutorily required in the reorganization process. With certain specified exceptions (not including the transportation provisions), those reorganization plans may be changed by the voters in the affected districts. ■ N. D. Cent. Code §15-27.3-19 (Supp. 1987). Although it appears that no reorganized district has ever used this mechanism to adopt a user fee like Dickinson’s, we have not been informed that such a step could not legally be taken. Thus, the one definitely established difference between reorganized and non-reorganized districts is this: in the latter, local school boards may impose a bus service user fee on their own authority, while the direct approval of the voters would be required in reorganized districts. That difference, however, simply reflects voluntary agreements made during the history of North Dakota’s reorganization process, and it could scarcely be thought to make the State’s laws arbitrary or irrational.
Even if we assume, as appellants apparently do, that the State has forbidden reorganized school districts to charge user fees for bus service under any circumstances, it is evident that the legislature could conceivably have believed that such a policy would serve the legitimate purpose of fulfilling the reasonable expectations of those residing in districts with free busing arrangements imposed by reorganization plans. Because this purpose could have no application to nonreorga-nized districts, the legislature could just as rationally conclude that those districts should have the option of imposing user fees on those who take advantage of the service they are offered.
In sum, the statute challenged in this case discriminates against no suspect class and interferes with no fundamental' right. Appellants have failed to carry the heavy burden of demonstrating that the statute is arbitrary and irrational. The Supreme Court of North Dakota correctly concluded that the statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and its judgment is
Affirmed.
Appellants also suggest that their position is supported by Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U. S. 660 (1983). We disagree. In Bearden, we held that a trial court erred “in automatically revoking probation because the [offender] could not pay his fine, without determining that [he] had not made sufficient bona fide efforts to pay or that adequate alternative forms of punishment did not exist.” Id., at 662. Whether this decision is considered under equal protection or due process principles, see id., at 664-667, the criminal-sentencing decision at issue in Bearden is not analogous to the user fee at issue in the case before us. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue of the Court's decision. Determine the issue of the case on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. | What is the issue of the decision? | [
"voting",
"Voting Rights Act of 1965, plus amendments",
"ballot access (of candidates and political parties)",
"desegregation (other than as pertains to school desegregation, employment discrimination, and affirmative action)",
"desegregation, schools",
"employment discrimination: on basis of race, age, religion, illegitimacy, national origin, or working conditions.",
"affirmative action",
"slavery or indenture",
"sit-in demonstrations (protests against racial discrimination in places of public accommodation)",
"reapportionment: other than plans governed by the Voting Rights Act",
"debtors' rights",
"deportation (cf. immigration and naturalization)",
"employability of aliens (cf. immigration and naturalization)",
"sex discrimination (excluding sex discrimination in employment)",
"sex discrimination in employment (cf. sex discrimination)",
"Indians (other than pertains to state jurisdiction over)",
"Indians, state jurisdiction over",
"juveniles (cf. rights of illegitimates)",
"poverty law, constitutional",
"poverty law, statutory: welfare benefits, typically under some Social Security Act provision.",
"illegitimates, rights of (cf. juveniles): typically inheritance and survivor's benefits, and paternity suits",
"handicapped, rights of: under Rehabilitation, Americans with Disabilities Act, and related statutes",
"residency requirements: durational, plus discrimination against nonresidents",
"military: draftee, or person subject to induction",
"military: active duty",
"military: veteran",
"immigration and naturalization: permanent residence",
"immigration and naturalization: citizenship",
"immigration and naturalization: loss of citizenship, denaturalization",
"immigration and naturalization: access to public education",
"immigration and naturalization: welfare benefits",
"immigration and naturalization: miscellaneous",
"indigents: appointment of counsel (cf. right to counsel)",
"indigents: inadequate representation by counsel (cf. right to counsel)",
"indigents: payment of fine",
"indigents: costs or filing fees",
"indigents: U.S. Supreme Court docketing fee",
"indigents: transcript",
"indigents: assistance of psychiatrist",
"indigents: miscellaneous",
"liability, civil rights acts (cf. liability, governmental and liability, nongovernmental; cruel and unusual punishment, non-death penalty)",
"miscellaneous civil rights (cf. comity: civil rights)"
] | [
18
] | sc |
FERGUSON v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY CO.
No. 799.
Decided March 17, 1958.
Jo B. Gardner for petitioner.
James L. Homire and Frank C. Mann for respondent.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. We hold that the proofs were sufficient to submit to the jury the question whether employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury. Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U. S. 53; Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500; Webb v. Illinois Central R. Co., 352 U. S. 512; Shaw v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Futrelle v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Deen v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 353 U. S. 925; Thomson v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 353 U. S. 926; Arnold v. Panhandle & S. F. R. Co., 353 U. S. 360; Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 354 U. S. 901; McBride v. Toledo Terminal R. Co., 354 U. S. 517; Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18; Honeycutt v. Wabash R. Co., 355 U. S. 424. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the result for the reasons given in his memorandum in Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18.
For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari is improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice Whittaker dissents. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. 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. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations | What is the ideological direction of the decision reviewed by the Supreme Court? | [
"Conservative",
"Liberal",
"Unspecifiable"
] | [
0
] | sc |
GOMEZ-PEREZ v. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 06-1321.
Argued February 19, 2008
Decided May 27, 2008
Joseph R. Guerra argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Virginia A. Seitz, Ileana M. Ciobanu, Richard A. Kaplan, and Edelmiro A. Salas.
Deputy Solicitor General Garre argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bucholtz, Anthony A. Yang, Marleigh D. Dover, and August E. Flentje
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for AARP by Daniel B. Kohrman and Melvin R. Radowitz; and for the National Treasury Employees Union by Gregory O’Duden, Elaine D. Kaplan, Barbara A. Atkin, and Robert H. Shriver III.
Justice Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us is whether a federal employee who is a victim of retaliation due to the filing of a complaint of age discrimination may assert a claim under the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as added, 88 Stat. 74, and amended, 29 U. S. C. § 633a(a). We hold that such a claim is authorized.
I
Petitioner Myrna Gómez-Pérez was a window distribution clerk for the United States Postal Service. In October 2002, petitioner, then 45 years of age, was working full time at the Post Office in Dorado, Puerto Rico. She requested a transfer to the Post Office in Moca, Puerto Rico, in order to be closer to her mother, who was ill. The transfer was approved, and in November 2002, petitioner began working at the Moca Post Office in a part-time position. Later that month, petitioner requested a transfer back to her old job at the Dorado Post Office, but her supervisor converted the Dorado position to part-time, filled it with another employee, and denied petitioner’s application.
After first filing an unsuccessful union grievance seeking a transfer back to her old job, petitioner filed a Postal Service equal employment opportunity age discrimination complaint. According to petitioner, she was then subjected to various forms of retaliation. Specifically, petitioner alleges that her supervisor called her into meetings during which groundless complaints were leveled at her, that her name was written on anti-sexual-harassment posters, that she was falsely accused of sexual harassment, that her co-workers told her to “ ‘go back’ ” to where she “ ‘belonged],’ ” and that her work hours were drastically reduced. 476 F. 3d 54, 56 (CA1 2007).
Petitioner responded by filing this action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, claiming, among other things, that respondent had violated the federal-sector provision of the ADEA, 29 U. S. C. § 633a(a), by retaliating against her for filing her equal employment opportunity age discrimination complaint. Respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing that the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for ADEA retaliation claims and that the ADEA federal-sector provision does not reach retaliation. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent on the basis of sovereign immunity.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U. S. C. § 401(1), unequivocally waived the Postal Service’s sovereign immunity, see 476 F. 3d, at 54, 57, but the court affirmed the decision of the District Court on the alternative ground that the federal-sector provision’s prohibition of “discrimination based on age,” § 633a(a), does not cover retaliation, id., at 60, creating a split among the Courts of Appeals. Cf. Forman v. Small, 271 F. 3d 285, 296 (CADC 2001) (ADEA federal-sector provision covers retaliation). We granted certiorari. 551 U. S. 1188 (2007).
II
The federal-sector provision of the ADEA provides that “[a]ll personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment who are at least 40 years of age . . . shall be made free from any discrimination based on age.” § 633a(a). The key question in this case is whether the statutory phrase “discrimination based on age” includes retaliation based on the filing of an age discrimination complaint. We hold that it does.
In reaching this conclusion, we are guided by our prior decisions interpreting similar language in other antidiscrimination statutes. In Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U. S. 229 (1969), we considered whether a claim of retaliation could be brought under Rev. Stat. § 1978, 42 U. S. C. § 1982, which provides that “[a]ll citizens of the United States shall have the same right ... as is enjoyed by white citizens ... to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.” While § 1982 does not use the phrase “discrimination based on race,” that is its plain meaning. See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U. S. 509, 561 (2004) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (describing § 1982 as “banning public or private racial discrimination in the sale and rental of property”); Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409 (1968).
In Sullivan, a white man (Sullivan) held membership shares in a nonstock corporation that operated a park and playground for residents of the area in which he owned a home. Under the bylaws of the corporation, a member who leased a home in the area could assign a membership share in the corporation. But when Sullivan rented his house and attempted to assign a membership share to an African-American (Freeman), the corporation disallowed the assignment because of Freeman’s race and subsequently expelled Sullivan from the corporation for protesting that decision. Sullivan sued the corporation, and we held that his claim that he had been expelled “for the advocacy of Freeman’s cause” was cognizable under § 1982. 396 U. S., at 237. A contrary holding, we reasoned, would have allowed Sullivan to be “punished for trying to vindicate the rights of minorities” and would have given “impetus to the perpetuation of racial restrictions on property.” Ibid.
More recently, in Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 544 U. S. 167 (2005), we relied on Sullivan in interpreting Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 1681 et seq. Jackson, a public school teacher, sued his school board under Title IX, “alleging that the Board retaliated against him because he had complained about sex discrimination in the high school’s athletic program.” 544 U. S., at 171. Title IX provides in relevant part that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, ... be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” § 1681(a) (emphasis added). Holding that this provision prohibits retaliation, we wrote:
“Retaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is another form of intentional sex discrimination .... Retaliation is, by definition, an intentional act. It is a form of ‘discrimination’ because the complainant is being subjected to differential treatment. Moreover, retaliation is discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ because it is an intentional response to the nature of the complaint: an allegatipn of sex discrimination. We conclude that when a funding recipient retaliates against a person because he complains of sex discrimination, this constitutes intentional ‘discrimination’ ‘on the basis of sex,’ in violation of Title IX.” Id., at 173-174 (citations omitted).
This interpretation, we found, flowed naturally from Sullivan: “Retaliation for Jackson’s advocacy of the rights of the girls’ basketball team in this case is ‘discrimination’ ‘on the basis of sex,’ just as retaliation for advocacy on behalf of a black lessee in Sullivan was discrimination on the basis of race.” 544 U. S., at 176-177.
Following the reasoning of Sullivan and Jackson, we interpret the ADEA federal-sector provision’s prohibition of “discrimination based on age” as likewise proscribing retaliation. The statutory language at issue here (“discrimination based on age”) is not materially different from the language at issue in Jackson (“‘discrimination’” “‘on the basis of sex’”) and is the functional equivalent of the language at issue in Sullivan, see Jackson, supra, at 177 (describing Sullivan as involving “discrimination on the basis of race”). And the context in which the statutory language appears is the same in all three cases; that is, all three cases involve remedial provisions aimed at prohibiting discrimination.
The Jackson dissent strenuously argued that a claim of retaliation is conceptually different from a claim of discrimination, see 544 U. S., at 184-185 (opinion of Thomas, J.), but that view did not prevail. And respondent in this case does not ask us to overrule Sullivan or Jackson. Nor does respondent question the reasoning of those decisions. Indeed, in Jackson, the Government contended that “[t]he text. . . of Title IX demonstrate^] that it encompasses protection against retaliation” since “retaliation against a person because that person has filed a sex discrimination complaint is a form of intentional sex discrimination.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., O. T. 2004, No. 02-1672, p. 8. Similarly, in another case this Term, the Government has urged us to follow the reasoning of Sullivan and to hold that a claim of retaliation may be brought under Rev. Stat. § 1977, 42 U. S. C. § 1981. In that case, the Government argues that § 1981’s prohibition of “ ‘discrimination’ . . . quite naturally includes discrimination on account of having complained about discrimination.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curia# in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, O. T. 2007, No. 06-1431, p. 10.
Ill
The decision of the Court of Appeals, which respondent defends, perceived a “clear difference between a cause of action for discrimination and a cause of action for retaliation” and sought to distinguish Jackson on three grounds. 476 F. 3d, at 58-59. We are not persuaded, however, by any of these attempted distinctions.
A
The Court of Appeals first relied on the fact that the ADEA expressly creates a private right of action whereas Title IX, the statute at issue in Jackson, does not. See 476 F. 3d, at 58. The Court of Appeals appears to have reasoned that, because the private right of action under Title IX is implied and not express, see Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677 (1979), the Jackson Court had greater leeway to adopt an expansive interpretation of Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex.
This reasoning improperly conflates the question whether a statute confers a private right of action with the question whether the statute’s substantive prohibition reaches a particular form of conduct. These questions are analytically distinct, and confusing them would lead to exceedingly strange results.
For example, under the Court of Appeals’ reasoning, Title IX’s prohibition of “discrimination” “on the basis of sex,” in 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a), might have a narrower scope and might not reach retaliation if Title IX contained a provision expressly authorizing an aggrieved private party to bring suit to remedy a violation of § 1681(a). We do not see how such a conclusion could be defended. Section 1681(a)’s prohibition of “discrimination” either does or does not reach retaliation, and the presence or absence of another statutory provision expressly creating a private right of action cannot alter §1681(a)’s scope. In addition, it would be perverse if the enactment of a provision explicitly creating a private right of action — a provision that, if anything, would tend to suggest that Congress perceived a need for a strong remedy— were taken as a justification for narrowing the scope of the underlying prohibition.
The Court of Appeals’ reasoning also seems to lead to the strange conclusion that, despite Jackson’s holding that a private party may assert a retaliation claim under Title IX, the Federal Government might not be authorized to impose upon an entity that engages in retaliation the administrative remedies, including the termination of funding, that are expressly sanctioned under §1682. It would be extremely odd, however, if § 1681(a) had a broader scope when enforced by a means not expressly sanctioned by statute than it does when enforced by the means that the statute explicitly provides. For these reasons, we reject the proposition that Jackson may be distinguished from the present case on the ground that Title IX’s private right of action is implied.
B
The Court of Appeals next attempted to distinguish Jackson on the ground that retaliation claims play a more important role under Title IX than they do under the ADEA. The Court of Appeals pointed to our statement in Jackson that “ 'teachers and coaches ... are often in the best position to vindicate the rights of their students because they are better able to identify discrimination and bring it to the attention of administrators.’” 476 F. 3d, at 58 (quoting Jackson, 544 U. S., at 181). The Court of Appeals suggested that third parties are not needed to “identify instances of age discrimination and bring it to the attention of supervisors” and that, consequently, there is no need to extend §633a(a) to reach retaliation. 476 F. 3d, at 58.
This argument ignores the basis for the decision in Jackson. Jackson did not hold that Title IX prohibits retaliation because the Court concluded as a policy matter that such claims are important. Instead, the holding in Jackson was based on an interpretation of the “text of Title IX.” 544 U. S., at 173, 178.
Moreover, the statements in Jackson on which the Court of Appeals relied did not address the question whether the statutory term “discrimination” encompasses retaliation. Instead, those statements addressed the school board’s argument that, even if Title IX was held to permit some retaliation claims, only a “victim of the discrimination” — and not third parties — should be allowed to assert such a claim. Id., at 179-182. It was in response to this argument that the Court noted the particular importance of reports of Title IX violations by third parties such as teachers and coaches. Id., at 181.
C
Finally, the Court of Appeals attempted to distinguish Jackson on the ground that “Title IX was adopted in response to the Court’s holding in Sullivan,” whereas “there is no evidence in the legislative history that the ADEA’s federal sector provisions were adopted in a similar context.” 476 F. 3d, at 58-59. Jackson’s reliance on Sullivan, however, did not stem from “evidence in the legislative history” of Title IX. Jackson did not identify any such evidence but merely observed that “Congress enacted Title IX just three years after Sullivan was decided.” 544 U. S., at 176. Due to this chronology, the Court concluded, it was “‘not only appropriate but also realistic to presume that Congress was thoroughly familiar with [Sullivan] and that it expected its enactment [of Title IX] to be interpreted in conformity with [it].” Ibid, (quoting Cannon, 441 U. S., at 699). See also 544 U. S., at 176 (“Title IX was enacted in 1972, three years after [Sullivan]”)-, id., at 179-180 (“Sullivan . . . formed an important part of the backdrop against which Congress enacted Title IX”).
What Jackson said about the relationship between Sullivan and the enactment of Title IX can be said as well about the relationship between Sullivan and the enactment of the ADEA’s federal-sector provision, 29 U. S. C. § 633a. Sullivan was decided in 1969 and §633a was enacted in 1974— five years after the decision in Sullivan and two years after the enactment of Title IX. We see no reason to think that Congress forgot about Sullivan during the two years that passed between the enactment of Title IX in 1972 and the enactment of § 633a in 1974. And if, as Jackson presumed, Congress had Sullivan in mind when it enacted Title IX in 1972, it is “appropriate” and “realistic” to presume that Congress expected its prohibition of “discrimination based on age” in § 633a(a) “ ‘to be interpreted in conformity with’ ” its similarly worded prohibition of “discrimination” “on the basis of sex” in 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a), which it had enacted just two years earlier. 544 U. S., at 176 (quoting Cannon, supra, at 699).
IV
A
In arguing that §633a(a) does not encompass retaliation claims, respondent relies principally on the presence of a provision in the ADEA specifically prohibiting retaliation against individuals who complain about age discrimination in the private sector, § 623(d), and the absence of a similar provision specifically prohibiting retaliation against individuals who complain about age discrimination in federal employment. According to respondent, “the strong presumption is that [the] omission reflects that Congress acted intentionally and purposely in including such language in Section 623 of the Act and excluding it from Section 633a.” Brief for Respondent 17 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“[N]egative implications raised by disparate provisions are strongest” in those instances in which the relevant statutory provisions were “considered simultaneously when the language raising the implication was inserted.” Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320,330 (1997). Here, the two relevant provisions were not considered or enacted together. Section 623(d), which specifically prohibits private-sector retaliation, was enacted in 1967, see §4(d), 81 Stat. 603, but the federal-sector provision, §633a, was not added until 1974, see § 28(b)(2), 88 Stat. 74.
Respondent's argument is also undermined by the fact that the prohibitory language in the ADEA’s federal-sector provision differs sharply from that in the corresponding ADEA provision relating to private-sector employment. In the private-sector provision, Congress set out a specific list of forbidden employer practices. See 29 U. S. C. § 623(a). The omission from such a list of a specific prohibition of retaliation might have been interpreted as suggesting that Congress did not want to reach retaliation, and therefore Congress had reason to include a specific prohibition of retaliation, § 623(d), in order to dispel any such inference.
The ADEA federal-sector provision, however, was not modeled after § 623(d) and is couched in very different terms. The ADEA federal-sector provision was patterned “directly after” Title VII’s federal-sector discrimination ban. Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U. S. 156,167, n. 15 (1981). Like the ADEA’s federal-sector provision, Title VII’s federal-sector provision contains a broad prohibition of “discrimination,” rather than a list of specific prohibited practices. Compare §11, 86 Stat. 111, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-16(a) (2000 ed., Supp. V) (personnel actions affecting federal employees “shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”), with 29 U. S. C. § 633a(a) (2000 ed., Supp. V) (personnel actions affecting federal employees who are at least 40 years of age “shall be made free from any discrimination based on age”). And like the ADEA’s federal-sector provision, Title VII’s federal-sector provision incorporates certain private-sector provisions but does not incorporate the provision prohibiting retaliation in the private sector. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16(d) (incorporating §§2000e-5(f) to (k) but not §2000e-3(a), which forbids private-sector retaliation).
When Congress decided not to pattern 29 U. S. C. § 633a(a) after § 623(a) but instead to enact a broad, general ban on “discrimination based on age,” Congress was presumably familiar with Sullivan and had reason to expect that this ban would be interpreted “ ‘in conformity’ ” with that precedent. Jackson, 544 U. S., at 176. Under the reasoning of Sullivan, retaliation for complaining about age discrimination is “discrimination based on age,” “just as retaliation for advocacy on behalf of [the] black lessee in Sullivan was discrimination on the basis of race.” 544 U. S., at 176-177. Thus, because §§ 623(d) and 633a were enacted separately and are couched in very different terms, the absence of a federal-sector provision similar to § 623(d) does not provide a sufficient reason to depart from the reasoning of Sullivan and Jackson.
B
We see even less merit in respondent’s reliance on 29 U. S. C. § 633a(f), which provides that personnel actions by a federal department, agency, or other entity covered by § 633a “shall not be subject to, or affected by, any provisions of this chapter” other than §§633a and 631(b), the provisions that restrict the coverage of the ADEA to persons who are at least 40 years of age. Respondent contends that recognizing federal-sector retaliation claims would be tantamount to making § 623(d) applicable to federal-sector employers and would thus contravene § 633a(f).
This argument is unsound because our holding that the ADEA prohibits retaliation against federal-sector employees is not in any way based on § 623(d). Our conclusion, instead, is based squarely on § 633a(a) itself, “unaffected by other sections” of the ADEA. Lehman, supra, at 168.
C
Respondent next advances a complicated argument concerning “[t]he history of congressional and executive branch responses to the problem of discrimination in federal employment.” Brief for Respondent 27. After Title VII was made applicable to federal employment in 1972, see Equal Employment Opportunity Act, §11, 86 Stat. Ill, the Civil Service Commission issued new regulations that prohibited discrimination in federal employment based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin (but not age), see 5 CFR §713.211 (1973), as well as “reprisals]” prompted by complaints about such discrimination, § 713.262(a). When Congress enacted the ADEA’s federal-sector provisions in 1974, respondent argues, Congress anticipated that the enactment of § 633a would prompt the Civil Service Commission to “extend its existing reprisal regulations” to cover age discrimination complaints and that Congress intended for the civil service process to provide the exclusive avenue for asserting retaliation claims. Brief for Respondent 27, 33, and n. 7. Respondent suggests that Congress took this approach because it believed that the civil service regulations “reflected] a distinct set of public policy concerns in the civil service sector.” Id., at 27.
Respondent cites no direct evidence that Congress actually took this approach; respondent’s argument rests on nothing more than unsupported speculation. And, in any event, respondent’s argument contradicts itself. If, as respondent maintains, “[sjection 633a(a) does not confer an anti-retaliation right,” id., at 9, then there is no reason to assume that Congress expected the Civil Service Commission to respond to the enactment of § 633a(a) by issuing new regulations prohibiting retaliation. On the contrary, if, as respondent maintains, Congress had declined to provide an antiretaliation right, then Congress presumably would have expected the Civil Service Commission to abide by that policy choice.
D
Respondent’s final argument is that principles of sovereign immunity “require that Section 633a(a) be read narrowly as prohibiting substantive age discrimination, but not retaliation.” Id., at 44. Respondent contends that the broad waiver of sovereign immunity in the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U. S. C. §401(1), is beside the point for present purposes because, for many federal agencies, the only provision that waives sovereign immunity for ADEA claims is contained in §633a, and therefore this waiver provision “must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign.” Brief for Respondent 44 (quoting United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 34 (1992); internal quotation marks omitted).
Respondent is of course correct that “[a] waiver of the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text” and “will be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign.” Lane v. Peña, 518 U. S. 187, 192 (1996). But this rule of construction is satisfied here. Subsection (c) of §633a unequivocally waives sovereign immunity for a claim brought by “[a]ny person aggrieved” to remedy a violation of § 633a. Unlike § 633a(c), § 633a(a) is not a waiver of sovereign immunity; it is a substantive provision outlawing “discrimination.” That the waiver in § 633a(c) applies to § 633a(a) claims does not mean that § 633a(a) must surmount the same high hurdle as § 633a(c). See United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U. S. 465,472-473 (2003) (where one statutory provision unequivocally provides for a waiver of sovereign immunity to enforce a separate statutory provision, that latter provision “ ‘need not... be construed in the manner appropriate to waivers of sovereign immunity’” (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 218-219 (1983))). But in any event, even if §633a(a) must be construed in the same manner as § 633a(c), we hold, for the reasons previously explained, that §633a(a) prohibits retaliation with the requisite clarity.
* * *
For these reasons, we hold that §633a(a) prohibits retaliation against a federal employee who complains of age discrimination. 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.
Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas join as to all but Part I, dissenting.
The Court today holds that the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act encompasses not only claims of age discrimination — which its language expressly provides — but also claims of retaliation for complaining about age discrimination — which its language does not. Protection against discrimination may include protection against retaliation for complaining about discrimination, but that is not always the case. The separate treatment of each in the private-sector provision of the ADEA makes that clear. In my view, the statutory language and structure, as well as the fact that Congress has always protected federal employees from retaliation through the established civil service process, confirm that Congress did not intend those employees to have a separate judicial remedy for retaliation under the ADEA. I respectfully dissent.
I
Congress enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 602, which at the time applied only to private employers, with the purpose of “promot[ing] employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age;... [of] prohibiting] arbitrary age discrimination in employment; [and of] helping] employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.” 29 U. S. C. §621(b). The 1967 Act implemented this purpose in two principal ways. First, the statute made it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual. . . because of such individual’s age.” § 623(a)(1). Second, Congress enacted a specific antiretaliation provision, which made it “unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment . . . because such individual . . . has opposed any practice made unlawful by this section, or because such individual... has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under” the ADEA. § 623(d).
In the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974 (FLSA Amendments), § 28(b)(2), 88 Stat. 74, Congress (among other things) extended the ADEA to most Executive Branch employees by adopting 29 U. S. C. § 633a. Like its private-sector counterpart, this federal-sector provision includes a ban on discrimination on the basis of age. Unlike its private-sector counterpart, the federal-sector provision does not include a separate ban on retaliation. The federal-sector provision specifies only that “[a]ll personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment who are at least 40 years of age [in various federal agencies] shall be made free from any discrimination based on age.” § 633a(a).
Despite the absence of an express retaliation provision in § 633a(a), the Court finds that the statute encompasses both discrimination and retaliation claims. To support this proposition, the Court principally relies on our decisions in Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U. S. 229 (1969), and Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 544 U. S. 167 (2005). In my view, the majority reads these cases for more than they are worth.
As the majority correctly states, we held in Sullivan that 42 U. S. C. § 1982, which prohibits race discrimination in the sale or rental of property, also provides a cause of action for retaliation. 396 U. S., at 237. More recently, we held in Jackson that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373 — which provides in relevant part that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be ex-eluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,” 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a) — encompasses claims of retaliation for complaints about sex discrimination. 544 U. S., at 173-174.
To the extent the majority takes from these precedents the principle that broad antidiscrimination provisions may also encompass an antiretaliation component, I do not disagree. That is why I am able to join today’s opinion in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, ante, at 457 (holding that a retaliation claim is cognizable under 42 U. S. C. § 1981). But it cannot be — contrary to the majority’s apparent view— that any time Congress proscribes “discrimination based on X,” it means to proscribe retaliation as well. That is clear from the private-sector provision of the ADEA, which includes a ban on “discriminat[ion] against any individual . . . because of such individual’s age,” 29 U. S. C. § 623(a)(1), but also includes a separate (and presumably not superfluous) ban on retaliation, § 623(d).
Indeed, we made this precise observation in Jackson itself. The respondent in that case argued that Title IX’s ban on discrimination could not include a cause of action for retaliation because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, like the private-sector provision of the ADEA, includes discrete discrimination and retaliation provisions. See 42 U. S. C. §§2000e-2 (discrimination), 2000e-3 (retaliation). We distinguished Title VII on the ground that “Title IX is a broadly written general prohibition on discrimination,” while “Title VII spells out in greater detail the conduct that constitutes discrimination in violation of that statute.” 544 U. S., at 175. Thus, while we distinguished Title VII from Title IX in Jackson, we also acknowledged that not every express ban on discrimination must be read as a ban on retaliation as well.
What is more, although the majority asserts that Jackson rejected the view that “a claim of retaliation is conceptually different from a claim of discrimination,” ante, at 481, we have since explained that antidiscrimination and antiretaliation provisions are indeed conceptually distinct, and serve distinct purposes. In Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53 (2006), we considered whether the antiretaliation provision in the Title VII private-sector provision, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-3(a) — which is materially indistinguishable from that in the ADEA — applies “only [to] those employer actions and resulting harms that are related to employment or the workplace.” 548 U. S., at 61. In answering that question in the negative, we explained:
“The antidiscrimination provision seeks a workplace where individuals are not discriminated against because of their [protected] status. The antiretaliation provision seeks to secure that primary objective by preventing an employer from interfering (through retaliation) with an employee’s efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the Act’s basic guarantees. The substantive provision seeks to prevent injury to individuals based on who they are, i. e., their status. The antiretaliation provision seeks to prevent harm to individuals based on what they do, i. e., their conduct.” Id., at 63 (citation omitted).
While I take from Sullivan and Jackson the proposition that broad bans on discrimination, standing alone, may be read to include a retaliation component, the provision at issue here does not stand alone. And, as Jackson itself makes clear, see 544 U. S., at 173,175, “the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme,” Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803, 809 (1989). Here the text and structure of the statute, the broader statutory scheme of which it is a part, and distinctions between federal- and private-sector employment convince me that §633a(a) does not provide a cause of action for retaliation.
II
We have explained that “[w]here 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.” Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). If, as the majority holds, the ban on “discrimination based on age” in §633a(a) encompasses both discrimination and retaliation claims, it is difficult to understand why Congress would have felt the need to specify in § 623 separate prohibitions against both “discrimination]” “because of [an] individual’s age,” and retaliation.
The majority responds by noting that “ ‘[negative implications raised by disparate provisions are strongest’ in those instances in which the relevant statutory provisions were ‘considered simultaneously when the language raising the implication was inserted.’” Ante, at 486 (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320,330 (1997)). Here, the majority notes that § 623 was enacted in 1967, while § 633a was not passed until 1974. Ante, at 486. Fair enough, but while I do not quarrel with this principle as a general matter, I do not think it does the work the majority thinks it does. Congress obviously had the private-sector ADEA provision prominently before it when it enacted § 633a, because the same bill that included §633a also amended the private-sector provision. See, e. g., § 28(a)(2), 88 Stat. 74 (amending the definition of “employer” in 29 U. S. C. § 630(b) to include States and their political subdivisions). Indeed, it is quite odd to assume, as the majority does, see ante, at 485, 488, that the Congress that enacted § 633a was aware of and relied upon our decision in Sullivan — which, interpreted 42 U. S. C. § 1982, a wholly unrelated provision — but was not attuned to its own work reflected in the differences between 29 U. S. C. §§623 and 633a. Even if the negative implication to be drawn from those differences may not be at its “strongest” under these circumstances, it is certainly strong enough.
Moreover, and more to the point, we have relied on the differences in language between the federal- and private-sector provisions of the ADE A specifically in our interpretation of § 633a. In Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U. S. 156 (1981), we faced the question whether a person bringing an action under § 633a(c), alleging a violation of § 633a(a), was entitled to a trial by jury. In holding that there was no jury-trial right available against the Federal Government, we relied on the fact that while the ADEA’s federal-sector provision did not include a provision for a jury trial, the analogous grant of a right of action in the private-sector provision, § 626(c), “expressly provides for jury trials.” Id., at 162. We reasoned that “Congress accordingly demonstrated that it knew how to provide a statutory right to a jury trial when it wished to do so elsewhere in the very ‘legislation cited.’... But in [§ 633a(c)] it failed explicitly to do so.” Ibid, (quoting Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S. 372, 389 (1943)). So too here. “Congress . . . demonstrated that it knew how to” provide a retaliation cause of action “when it wished to do so elsewhere in the very ‘legislation cited,’ ” but “failed explicitly to do so” in § 633a(a).
The majority argues that this inference is weakened by the fact that, in “the private-sector provision, Congress set out a specific list of forbidden employer practices,” ante, at 486-487, while § 633a(a) is a “broad, general ban on ‘diserimination based on age/ ” ante, at 488. This point cuts against the majority. Section 623 drew a distinction between prohibited “employer practices” that discriminate based on age, and retaliation. See §§ 623(a) (discriminatory “[ejmployer practices”), 623(d) (retaliation). Section 633a(a) phrased the prohibited discrimination in terms of “personnel actions.” Just as Congress did not regard retaliation as included within “employer practices,” but dealt with it separately in § 623(d), the counterpart to “employer practices” in § 633a— discriminatory “personnel actions” — should similarly not be read to include retaliation.
The argument that some meaning ought to attach to Congress’s inclusion of an antiretaliation provision in §623 but not in §633a is further supported by several other factors. To begin with, Congress expressly made clear that the ADEA’s private-sector provisions should not apply to their federal-sector counterpart, by providing that “[ajny personnel action . . . referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall not be subject to, or affected by, any provision of” the ADEA, except for one provision not relevant here. § 633a(f). The majority sees no “merit in respondent’s reliance on 29 U. S. C. §633a(f).” Ante, at 488. But again, we relied on this very provision in Lehman. We explained that this subsection “clearly emphasize[s] that [§633a] was self-contained and unaffected by other sections” of the ADEA, 453 U. S., at 168, a fact that we used to support our holding that the federal-sector provision does not provide a right to a jury trial, even though the private-sector provision does. In short, Congress was aware that there were significant differences between the private- and federal-sector portions of the ADEA, and specified that no part of the former should be understood to have been implicitly imported into the latter.
Other actions Congress took at the same time that it enacted § 633a in 1974 further underscore the point that Congress deliberately chose to exclude retaliation claims from the ADEA’s federal-sector provision. The Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974, as the Act’s name suggests, dealt for the most part not with the ADEA, but with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, extending that statute’s protections to federal employees. See FLSA Amendments, § 6(a)(2), 88 Stat. 58. In doing so, Congress explicitly subjected federal employers to the FLSA’s express antiretaliation provision, 29 U. S. C. § 215(a)(3). Congress did not similarly subject the Federal Government to the express antiretaliation provision in the ADEA, strongly suggesting that this was a conscious choice.
The majority responds that this “inference ... is unfounded” because “Congress had good reason to expect that this broad ban would be interpreted in the same way that Sullivan... had interpreted the broad ban on racial discrimination in 42 U. S. C. § 1982.” Ante, at 490, n. 6. Anything is possible, but again, it seems far more likely that Congress had its eye on the private-sector provision of the ADEA in crafting the federal one, rather than on one of our precedents on a different statute. See supra, at 496-497.
But whatever the merits of this argument, it does not rebut the import of other probative provisions of the FLSA Amendments. In particular, Congress specifically chose in the FLSA Amendments to treat States and the Federal Government differently with respect to the ADEA itself. It subjected the former to the ADEA’s private-sector provision, see FLSA Amendments, § 28(a)(2), 88 Stat. 74— including the express prohibition against retaliation in § 623(d) — while creating §633a as a stand-alone prohibition against discrimination in federal employment, without an antiretaliation provision, see § 28(b)(2), ibid. This decision evinces a deliberate legislative choice not to extend those portions of the ADEA’s private-sector provisions that are not expressly included in §633a, as of course Congress specified in § 633a(f).
Given all this, it seems safe to say that the text and structure of the statute strongly support the proposition that Congress did not intend to include a cause of action for retaliation against federal employees in § 633a(a).
Ill
But why would Congress allow retaliation suits against private-sector and state employers, but not against the Federal Government? The answer is that such retaliation was dealt with not through a judicial remedy, but rather the way retaliation in the federal workplace was typically addressed — through the established civil service system, with its comprehensive protection for Government workers. Congress was quite familiar with that detailed administrative system — one that already existed for most federal employees, but not for private ones. This approach, unlike the Court’s, is consistent with the fact that Congress has recognized that regulation of the civil service is a complex issue, requiring “careful attention to conflicting policy considerations” and “balancing governmental efficiency and the rights of employees,” Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367, 388, 389 (1983). The resulting system often requires remedies different from those found to be appropriate for the private sector (or even for the States).
A
Before Title VII was extended to federal employees in 1972, discrimination in federal employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was prohibited by executive order. See Exec. Order No. 11478, 34 Fed. Reg. 12985 (1969). Civil service regulations implemented this policy by authorizing Executive Branch employees to bring administrative complaints for allegedly discriminatory acts, including “personnel action[s],” 5 CFR §§713.211, 713.214(a)(l)(i) (1972). These regulations further provided that such complainants, their representatives, and witnesses “shall be free from restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal” for their involvement in the complaint process. §§ 713.214(b) (complainants and representatives), 713.218(e) (witnesses).
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) promulgated a detailed scheme through which federal employees could vindicate these rights, including the express antiretaliation protections. More serious personnel actions, known as “adverse actions,” could be challenged before the employing agency and appealed to the CSC, see §§ 713.219(a) and (b), 752.203, 771.202, 771.208, 771.222, while less serious personnel actions and “any [other] matter of concern or dissatisfaction” could be challenged under alternative procedures that were also appealable to the CSC, see §§ 713.217(b), 713.218, 713.219(a) and (c), 713.231(a), 771.302(a). Retaliation was proscribed in all events. See, e. g., §§ 713.219(a) and (c) (incorporating Part 771 antiretaliation provisions to complaint procedures except certain appeals to the CSC); §§ 771.105(a)(1) and (b)(1), 771.211(e) (antiretaliation provisions for CSC appeals).
In 1972, Congress applied Title VII to the federal sector, Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (EEO Act), § 11, 86 Stat. Ill, mandating that “[a]ll personnel actions” with respect to federal employees “shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16(a). Congress empowered the CSC “to enforce the provisions of subsection (a) of this section through appropriate remedies,” and to “issue such rules, regulations, orders and instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities under this section.” § 2000e-16(b).
Under this grant of authority, as well as its prior authority under statute and executive order, the CSC revised its regulations both “to implement the [EEO Act] and to strengthen the system of complaint processing.” 37 Fed. Reg. 22717 (1972) (Part 713 Subpart B). As with its prior system of administrative enforcement, the CSC distinguished between “complaints of discrimination on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” 5 CFR §713.211 (1973), on the one hand, and charges by a “complainant, his representative, or a witness who alleges restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal in connection with the presentation of a complaint,” § 713.262(a), on the other. The regulations imposed upon employing agencies the obligation of “timely investigation and resolution of complaints including complaints of coercion and reprisal,” 37 Fed. Reg. 22717; see also 5 CFR § 713.220, and made clear the procedures for processing retaliation claims, §§713.261, 713.262. The regulations further mandated that the CSC “require the [employing] agency to take whatever action is appropriate” with respect to allegations of retaliation if the agency itself has “not completed an appropriate inquiry,” § 713.262(b)(1).
Thus, leading up to the enactment of 29 U. S. C. § 633a in 1974, the CSC’s comprehensive regulatory scheme set forth a broadly applicable remedy for retaliation against federal employees for filing complaints or otherwise participating in the EEO process. And when Congress empowered the CSC in 1974 to “enforce the provisions of [§ 633a(a)] through appropriate remedies,” and to “issue such rules, regulations, orders, and instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities” under that statute, § 28(b)(2), 88 Stat. 75, the assumption that Congress expected the CSC to create an administrative antiretaliation remedy, just as it had for complaints of discrimination under Title VII, is compelling. And sure enough, the CSC did just that promptly after § 633a was enacted. See 39 Fed. Reg. 24351 (1974); 5 CFR §713.511 (1975).
Given this history of addressing retaliation through administrative means, combined with the complicated nature (relative to the private sector) of federal personnel practices, it is therefore by no means anomalous that Congress would have dealt with the “primary objective” of combating age discrimination through a judicial remedy, Burlington, 548 U. S., at 63, but left it to expert administrators used to dealing with personnel matters in the federal work force to “secure that primary objective by preventing an employer from interfering (through retaliation) with an employee’s efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the Act’s basic guarantees,” ibid.
B
The majority discounts the above argument as “unsupported speculation.” Ante, at 490. . It seems to me that the fact that the Executive Branch had always treated discrimination and retaliation as distinct, and that it enacted administrative remedies for retaliation almost immediately after the passage of the Title VII and ADEA federal-sector provisions, provide plenty of support. But even if the majority is right, the view that Congress intended to treat retaliation for age discrimination complaints as a problem to be dealt with primarily through administrative procedures, rather than through the judicial process in the first instance, is confirmed by Congress’s passage of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 92 Stat. 1111.
The CSRA, as amended, has a detailed comprehensive antiretaliation provision, which generally makes it unlawful for Executive Branch employers to
“take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, any personnel action against any employee or applicant for employment because of . . . (A) the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation [or] (B) testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting any individual in the exercise of any right referred to in subparagraph (A).” 5 U. S. C. § 2302(b)(9).
This antiretaliation provision, which plainly applies to retaliation for exercising rights under the civil rights statutes, including the ADEA, is supported by a host of administrative remedies. If the alleged retaliation results in adverse actions such as removal, suspension for more than 14 days, or reduction in pay, see §7512, an appeal can be taken directly to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), §§ 7513(d), 7701, with judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, § 7703(b)(1). Retaliation claims based on less serious allegations are first investigated by the Office of Special Counsel. If the Office finds that there are reasonable grounds supporting the retaliation charge, it must report its determination to, and may seek corrective action from, the MSPB. §§ 1214(a)(1)(A), (b)(2)(B), (C), and 1214(c). Again, judicial review in the Federal Circuit is available. § 7703(b)(1). In all events, upon a finding that retaliation has in fact occurred, the MSPB has the authority to order corrective action, §§ 1214(b)(4), 7701(b)(2), to order attorney’s fees on appeal, § 7701(g), and to discipline federal employees responsible for retaliatory acts, § 1215.
To be sure, the CSRA was enacted after § 633a. Nevertheless, we have explained, in the same context of federal employee remedies, that the “classic judicial task of reconciling many laws enacted over time, and getting them to ‘make sense’ in combination, necessarily assumes that the implications of a statute may be altered by the implications of a later statute.” United States v. Fausto, 484 U. S. 439, 453 (1988). That is precisely the situation here.
Indeed, this is particularly true with respect to Congress’s regulation of federal employment. We have explained that the CSRA is an “integrated scheme of administrative and judicial review, designed to balance the legitimate interests of the various categories of federal employees with the needs of sound and efficient administration.” Id., at 445. Perhaps the CSRA’s “civil service remedies [are] not as effective as an individual damages remedy” that can be obtained in federal court, Bush, 462 U. S., at 372, or perhaps a quicker and more familiar administrative remedy is more effective as a practical matter. That is not the issue. Cf. id., at 388 (the question whether a judicial remedy against a federal employer for a First Amendment violation should be implied “obviously cannot be answered simply by noting that existing remedies do not provide complete relief for the plaintiff”). The CSRA establishes an “elaborate, comprehensive scheme that encompasses substantive provisions forbidding arbitrary action by supervisors and procedures — administrative and judicial — by which improper action may be redressed.” Id., at 385. Retaliation as a general matter was already addressed for federal employees. I would not read into § 633a a judicial remedy for retaliation when Congress— which has “developed considerable familiarity with balancing governmental efficiency and the rights of employees,” id., at 389 — chose to provide a detailed administrative one.
* * *
The question whether a ban against “discrimination based on” a protected status such as age can also be read to encompass a ban on retaliation can be answered only after careful scrutiny of the particular provision in question. In this case, an analysis of the statutory language of § 633a and the broader scheme of which it is a part confirms that Congress did not intend implicitly to create a judicial remedy for retaliation against federal employees, when it did so expressly for private-sector employees. Congress was not sloppy in creating this distinction; it did so for good reason: because the federal workplace is governed by comprehensive regulation, of which Congress was well aware, while the private sector is not.
For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting.
I join all but Part I of The Chief Justice’s dissent. I write separately to reiterate my view that Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 544 U. S. 167 (2005), incorrectly conflated the concepts of retaliation and discrimination. The text of the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 is clear: It prohibits only “discrimination based on age.” 29 U. S. C. §633a(a). If retaliation is not “discrimination on the basis of sex,” Jackson, supra, at 185 (Thomas, J., dissenting), or “discrimination based on race,” CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, ante, at 459 (Thomas, J., dissenting), it is certainly not “discrimination based on age.” Because §633a(a) provides no basis for implying a private right of action for retaliation claims, and its context only reaffirms its plain meaning, see ante, at 496-500 (opinion of Roberts, C. J.), I would affirm the judgment below.
Suggesting that we have retreated from the reasoning of Sullivan and Jackson, The Chief Justice, citing Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53, 63-65 (2006), states that “we have since explained that anti-discrimination and antiretaliation provisions are indeed conceptually distinct, and serve distinct purposes.” Post, at 495 (dissenting opinion). But as the Court explains today in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, ante, at 456, “[i]n Burlington ... we used the status/conduct distinction to help explain why Congress might have wanted its explicit Title VII antiretaliation provision to sweep more broadly (i. e., to include conduct outside the workplace) than its substantive Title VII (status-based) antidiscrimination provision. Burlington did not suggest thát Congress must separate the two in all events.”
The situation here is quite different from that which we faced in Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U. S. 156 (1981), where both the private- and federal-sector provisions of the ADEA already existed and a single piece of legislation — the 1978 amendments to the ADEA — added a provision conferring a jury-trial right for private-sector ADEA suits but failed to include any similar provision for federal-sector suits. See Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1978, § 4(a)(2), 92 Stat. 190.
Section 623 provides in part:
“(a) Employer practices
“It shall be unlawful for an employer—
“(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age;
“(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees 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 age; or
“(3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply with this chapter.”
While the federal-sector provision of Title VII does not incorporate §2000e-3(a), the federal-sector provision of Title VII does incorporate a remedial provision, §2000e-5(g)(2)(A), that authorizes relief for a violation of § 2000e-3(a). Petitioner argues that this remedial provision shows that Congress meant for the Title VII federal-sector provision’s broad prohibition of “discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” to reach retaliation because otherwise there would be no provision banning retaliation in the federal sector and thus no way in which relief for retaliation could be awarded. Brief for Petitioner 20. The Federal Government, however, has declined to take a position on the question whether Title VII bans retaliation in federal employment, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 31, and that issue is not before us in this case.
The Government’s theory that the absence of a provision specifically banning federal-sector retaliation gives rise to the inference that § 633a(a) does not ban retaliation would lead logically to the strange conclusion that § 633a(a) also does not forbid age-discriminatory job notices and advertisements because §633a(a), unlike § 623(e), fails to mention such practices expressly.
Respondent asks us to infer that § 633a(a) does not proscribe retaliation because, when Congress made the ADEA applicable to the Federal Government, Congress did not simply subject the Federal Government to the ADEA’s private-employment provisions by amending the definition of “employer” to include the United States. Respondent contends that a similar inference may be drawn from the fact that in 1974 Congress added to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) a provision specifically making it unlawful to retaliate against an employee for attempting to vindicate FLSA rights. See § 215(a)(3). These arguments fail to appreciate the significance of § 633a(a)’s broad prohibition of “discrimination based on age.” Because Congress had good reason to expect that this broad ban would be interpreted in the same way that Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 392 U. S. 657 (1968) (per curiam), had interpreted the broad ban on racial discrimination in 42 U. S. C. § 1982, the inference that respondent asks us to draw is unfounded.
To the extent there was any disagreement about whether Sullivan was really a retaliation case, or whether it dealt only with third-party standing, the view put forth by the Court won the day in Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 544 U. S. 167 (2005). Compare id., at 176, and n. 1, with id., at 194 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Whatever the merits of this disagreement, I accept Jackson’s (and the Court’s) interpretation as a matter of stare decisis. See CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, ante, at 447.
The Court views this discussion of Burlington as “[suggesting that [the Court has] retreated from the reasoning of Sullivan and Jackson.” Ante, at 481, n. 1. Not a bit. The discussion simply points out what Burlington plainly said: that there is a distinction between discrimination and retaliation claims. That does not mean Congress cannot address both in the same provision, as we held it did in Sullivan and Jackson and as we hold today it did in CBOCS West, Inc., ante, at 457. But it does confirm that Congress may choose to separate the two, as the private-sector provision of the ADEA, as well as the portion of Title VII interpreted in Burlington, makes clear.
Neither 29 U. S. C. § 633a nor the CSRA cover employees of Congress or of the Executive Office of the President and Executive Residence of the White House. See § 633a(a); 5 U. S. C. § 2302(a)(2)(B). But Congress has expressly extended the protections of the ADEA to such employees, 2 U.S.C. § 1311(a)(2) (Congress); 3 U.S.C. §411(a)(2) (White House), and provided them with an express retaliation remedy, 2 U. S. C. § 1317; 3 U. S. C. § 417(a).
The Postal Service — Gómez-Pérez’s employer — operates under its own personnel system. But the Postal Service’s Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) prohibits “any action, event, or course of conduct that ... subjects any person to reprisal for prior involvement in EEO activity.” ELM §665.23, pp. 681-682 (June 2007). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether administrative action occurred in the context of the case prior to the onset of litigation. The activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. To determine whether administration action occurred in the context of the case, consider the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations. | Did administrative action occur in the context of the case? | [
"No",
"Yes"
] | [
0
] | sc |
MESSERSCHMIDT et al. v. MILLENDER, executor of ESTATE OF MILLENDER, DECEASED, et al.
No. 10-704.
Argued December 5, 2011
Decided February 22, 2012
Timothy T. Coates argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Lillie Hsu.
Principal Deputy Solicitor General Srinivasan argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. On the brief were Solicitor General Verrilli, Assistant Attorneys General Breuer and West, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, Acting Deputy Solicitor General Kruger, Sarah E. Harrington, John M. Pellettieri, Barbara L. Herwig, and August Flentje.
Paul R. Q. Wolf son argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Robert Mann, Olu K. Orange, and Shirley Cassin Woodward
A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the State of Texas et al. by Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, Jonathan F. Mitchell, Solicitor General, Daniel T. Hodge, First Assistant Attorney General, David C. Mattax, and David A. Talbot, Jr., and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Luther Strange of Alabama, John J. Burns of Alaska, Dustin McDaniel of Arkansas, John Suthers of Colorado, Joseph R. Biden III of Delaware, Pamela Jo Bondi of Florida, Samuel S. Olens of Georgia, David M. Louie of Hawaii, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Greg Zoeller of Indiana, Derek Schmidt of Kansas, James D. “Buddy" Caldwell of Louisiana, William J. Schneider of Maine, Bill Schuette of Michigan, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Steve Bullock of Montana, Jon Bruning of Nebraska, Gary King of New Mexico, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Linda L. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Peter F. Kilmartin of Rhode Island, Marty J. Jackl&y of South Dakota, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, J. B. VanHollen of Wisconsin, and Gregory A. Phillips of Wyoming.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union by Steven R. Shapiro; and for the National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al. by Stephen P. Halbrook and C. D. Michel.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner police officers conducted a search of respondents’ home pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral Magistrate. The warrant authorized a search for all guns and gang-related material, in connection with the investigation of a known gang member for shooting at his ex-girlfriend with a pistol-gripped sawed-off shotgun, because she had “call[ed] the cops” on him. App. 56. Respondents brought an action seeking to hold the officers personally liable under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that the search violated their Fourth Amendment rights because there was not sufficient probable cause to believe the items sought were evidence of a crime. In particular, respondents argued that there was no basis to search for all guns simply because the suspect owned and had used a sawed-off shotgun, and no reason to search for gang material because the shooting at the ex-girlfriend for “calling] the cops” was solely a domestic dispute. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the warrant was invalid, and that the officers were not entitled to immunity from personal liability because this invalidity was so obvious that any reasonable officer would have recognized it, despite the Magistrate’s approval. We disagree and reverse.
I
A
Shelly Kelly decided to break off her romantic relationship with Jerry Ray Bowen and move out of her apartment, to which Bowen had a key. Kelly feared an attack from Bowen, who had previously assaulted her and had been convicted of multiple violent felonies. She therefore asked officers from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to accompany her while she gathered her things. Deputies from the sheriff’s department came to assist Kelly but were called away to respond to an emergency before the move was complete..
As soon as the officers left, an enraged Bowen appeared at the bottom of the stairs to the apartment, yelling “I told you to never call the cops on me bitch!” App. 39, 56. Bowen then ran up the stairs to Kelly, grabbed her by her shirt, and tried to throw her over the railing of the second-story landing. When Kelly successfully resisted, Bowen bit her on the shoulder and attempted to drag her inside the apartment by her hair. Kelly again managed to escape Bowen’s grasp, and ran to her car. By that time, Bowen had retrieved a black sawed-off shotgun with a pistol grip. He ran in front of Kelly’s car, pointed the shotgun at her, and told Kelly that if she tried to leave he would kill her. Kelly leaned over, fully depressed the gas pedal, and sped away. Bowen fired at the car a total of five times, blowing out the car’s left front tire in the process, but Kelly managed to escape.
Kelly quickly located police officers and reported the assault. She told the police what had happened — that Bowen had attacked her after becoming “angry because she had called the Sheriff’s Department” — and she mentioned that Bowen was “an active member of the ‘Mona Park Crips,’ ” a local street gang. Id., at 39. Kelly also provided the officers with photographs of Bowen.
Detective Curt Messerschmidt was assigned to investigate the incident. Messerschmidt met with Kelly to obtain details of the assault and information about Bowen. Kelly described the attack and informed Messerschmidt that she thought Bowen was staying at his foster mother’s home at 2234 East 120th Street. Kelly also informed Messerschmidt of Bowen’s previous assaults on her and of his gang ties.
Messerschmidt then conducted a background check on Bowen by consulting police records, California Department of Motor Vehicles records, and the “cal-gang” database. Based on this research, Messerschmidt confirmed Bowen’s connection to the 2234 East 120th Street address. He also confirmed that Bowen was an “active” member of the Mona Park Crips and a “secondary” member of the Dodge City Crips. Id., at 64. Finally, Messerschmidt learned that Bowen had been arrested and convicted for numerous violent and firearm-related offenses. Indeed, at the time of the investigation, Bowen’s “rapsheet” spanned over 17 printed pages, and indicated that he had been arrested at least 31 times. Nine of these arrests were for firearms offenses and six were for violent crimes, including three arrests for assault with a deadly weapon (firearm). Id., at 72-81.
Messerschmidt prepared two warrants: one to authorize Bowen’s arrest and one to authorize the search of 2234 East 120th Street. An attachment to the search warrant described the property that would be the object of the search:
“All handguns, rifles, or shotguns of any caliber, or any firearms capable of firing ammunition, or firearms or devices modified or designed to allow it [sic] to fire ammunition. All caliber of ammunition, miscellaneous gun parts, gun cleaning kits, holsters which could hold or have held any caliber handgun being sought. Any receipts or paperwork, showing the purchase, ownership, or possession of the handguns being sought. Any firearm for which there is no proof of ownership. Any firearm capable of firing or chambered to fire any caliber ammunition.
“Articles of evidence showing street gang membership or affiliation with any Street Gang to include but not limited to any reference to ‘Mona Park Crips’, including writings or graffiti depicting gang membership, activity or identity. Articles of personal property tending to establish the identity of person {sic} in control of the premise or premises. Any photographs or photograph albums depicting persons, vehicles, weapons or locations, which may appear relevant to gang membership, or which may depict the item being sought and or believed to be evidence in the case being investigated on this warrant, or which may depict evidence of criminal activity. Additionally to include any gang indicia that would establish the persons being sought in this warrant, affiliation or membership with the ‘Mona Park Crips’ street gang.” Id., at 52.
Two affidavits accompanied Messerschmidt’s warrant applications. The first affidavit described Messerschmidt’s extensive law enforcement experience, including that he had served as a peace officer for 14 years, that he was then assigned to a “specialized unit” “investigating gang related crimes and arresting gang members for various violations of the law,” that he had been involved in “hundreds of gang related incidents, contacts, and or arrests” during his time on the force, and that he had “received specialized training in the field of gang related crimes” and training in “gang related shootings.” Id., at 53-54,
The second affidavit — expressly incorporated into the search warrant — explained why Messerschmidt believed there was sufficient probable cause to support the warrant. That affidavit described the facts of the incident involving Kelly and Bowen in great detail, including the weapon used in the assault. The affidavit recounted that Kelly had identified Bowen as the assailant and that she thought Bowen might be found at 2234 East 120th Street. It also reported that Messerschmidt had “conducted an extensive background search on the suspect by utilizing departmental records, state computer records, and other police agency records,” and that from that information he had concluded that Bowen resided at 2234 East 120th Street. Id., at 58.
The affidavit requested that the search warrant be endorsed for night service because “information provided by the victim and the cal-gang data base” indicated that Bowen had “gang ties to the Mona Park Crip gang” and that “night service would provide an added element of safety to the community as well as for the deputy personnel serving the warrant.” Id., at 59. The affidavit concluded by noting that Messerschmidt “believe[d] that the items sought” would be in Bowen’s possession and that “recovery of the weapon could be invaluable in the successful prosecution of the suspect involved in this case, and the curtailment of further crimes being committed.” Ibid.
Messerschmidt submitted the warrants to his supervisors — Sergeant Lawrence and Lieutenant Ornales — for review. Deputy District Attorney Janet Wilson also reviewed the materials and initialed the search warrant, indicating that she agreed with Messerschmidt’s assessment of probable cause. Id., at 27, 47. Finally, Messerschmidt submitted the warrants to a Magistrate. The Magistrate approved the warrants and authorized night service.
The search warrant was served two days later by a team of officers that included Messerschmidit and Lawrence. Sheriff’s deputies forced open the front door of 2234 East 120th Street and encountered Augusta Millender — a woman in her seventies — and Millender’s daughter and grandson. As instructed by the police, the Millenders went outside while the residence was secured but remained in the living room while the search was conducted. Bowen was not found in the residence. The search did, however, result in the seizure of Augusta Millender’s shotgun, a California Social Services letter addressed to Bowen, and a box of .45-caliber ammunition.
Bowen was arrested two weeks later after Messerschmidt found him hiding under a bed in a motel room.
B
The Millenders filed suit in Federal District Court against the County of Los Angeles, the sheriff’s department, the sheriff, and a number of individual officers, including Messerschmidt and Lawrence. The complaint alleged, as relevant here, that the search warrant was invalid under the Fourth Amendment. It sought damages from Messerschmidt and Lawrence, among others.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the validity of the search warrant. The District Court found the warrant defective in two respects. The District Court concluded that the warrant’s authorization to search for firearms was unconstitutionally overbroad because the “crime specified here was a physical assault with a very specific weapon” — a black sawed-off shotgun with a pistol grip— negating any need to “search for all firearms.” Millender v. County of Los Angeles, Civ. No. 05-2298 (CD Cal., Mar. 15, 2007), App. to Pet. for Cert. 106, 157, 2007 WL 7589200, *21. The court also found the warrant overbroad with respect to the search for gang-related materials, because there “was no evidence that the crime at issue was gang-related.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 157. As a result, the District Court granted summary judgment to the Millenders on their constitutional challenges to the firearm and gang material aspects of the search warrant. Id., at 160. The District Court also rejected the officers’ claim that they were entitled to qualified immunity from damages. Id., at 171.
Messerschmidt and Lawrence appealed, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity. Millen-der v. County of Los Angeles, 564 F. 3d 1143 (2009). The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because “they reasonably relied on the approval of the warrant by a deputy district attorney and a judge.” Id., at 1145.
The Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc and affirmed the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity. Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F. 3d 1016 (2010). The en banc court concluded that the warrant’s authorization was unconstitutionally overbroad because the affidavit and the warrant failed to “establish[] probable cause that the broad categories of firearms, firearm-related material, and gang-related material described in the warrant were contraband or evidence of a crime.” Id., at 1033. In the en banc court’s view, “the deputies had probable cause to search for a single, identified weapon .... They had no probable cause to search for the broad class of firearms and firearm-related materials described in the warrant.” Id., at 1027. In addition, “[b]ecause the deputies failed to establish any link between gang-related materials and a crime, the warrant authorizing the search and seizure of all gang-related evidence [was] likewise invalid.” Id., at 1031. Concluding that “a reasonable officer in the deputies’ position would have been well aware of this deficiency,” the en banc court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Id., at 1033-1035.
There were two separate dissenting opinions. Judge Callahan determined that “the officers had probable cause to search for and seize any firearms in the home in which Bowen, a gang member and felon, was thought to reside.” Id., at 1036. She also concluded that “the officers reasonably relied on their superiors, the district attorney, and the magistrate to correct” any overbreadth in the warrant, and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were not objectively unreasonable. Id., at 1044,1049. Judge Silverman also dissented, concluding that the “deputies’ belief in the validity of . . . the warrant was entirely reasonable” and that the “record [wa]s totally devoid of any evidence that the deputies acted other than in good faith.” Id., at 1050. Judge Tallman joined both dissents.
We granted certiorari. 564 U. S. 1035 (2011).
H — I i — i
The Millenders allege that they were subjected to an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the warrant authorizing the search of their home was not supported by probable cause. They seek damages from Messerschmidt and Lawrence for their roles in obtaining and executing this warrant. The validity of the warrant is not before us. The question instead is whether Messerschmidt and Lawrence are entitled to immunity from damages, even assuming that the warrant should not have been issued.
“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘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/” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982)). Qualified immunity “gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments,” and “protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law/” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 743 (2011) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 341 (1986)). “[Wjhether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 639 (1987) (citation omitted).
Where the alleged Fourth Amendment violation involves a search or seizure pursuant to a warrant, the fact that a neutral magistrate has issued a warrant is the clearest indication that the officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner or, as we have sometimes put it, in “objective good faith.” United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 922-923 (1984). Nonetheless, under our precedents, the fact that a neutral magistrate has issued a warrant authorizing the allegedly unconstitutional search or seizure does not end the inquiry into objective reasonableness. Rather, we have recognized an exception allowing suit when “it is obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that a warrant should issue.” Malley, 475 U. S., at 341. The “shield of immunity” otherwise conferred by the warrant, id., at 345, will be lost, for example, where the warrant was “based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable,” Leon, 468 U. S., at 923 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our precedents make clear, however, that the threshold for establishing this exception is a high one, and it should be. As we explained in Leon, “[i]n the ordinary case, an officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate’s probable-cause determination” because “[i]t is the magistrate’s responsibility to determine whether the officer’s allegations establish probable cause and, if so, to issue a warrant comporting in form with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 921; see also Malley, supra, at 346, n. 9 (“It is a sound presumption that the magistrate is more qualified than the police officer to make a probable cause determination, and it goes without saying that where a magistrate acts mistakenly in issuing a warrant but within the range of professional competence of a magistrate, the officer who requested the warrant cannot be held liable” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
I — I h-i
The Millenders contend, and the Court of Appeals held, that their case falls into this narrow exception. According to the Millenders, the officers “failed to provide any facts or circumstances from which a magistrate could properly conclude that there was probable cause to seize the broad classes of items being sought,” and “[n]o reasonable officer could have presumed that such a warrant was valid.” Brief for Respondents 27. We disagree.
A
With respect to the warrant’s authorization to search for and seize all firearms, the Millenders argue that “a reasonably well-trained officer would have readily perceived that there was no probable cause to search the house for all firearms and firearm-related items.” Id., at 32. Noting that “the affidavit indicated exactly what item was evidence of a crime — the 'black sawed off shotgun with a pistol grip,’” they argue that “[n]o facts established that Bowen possessed any other firearms, let alone that such firearms (if they existed) were 'contraband or evidence of a crime.’” Ibid. (quoting App. 56).
Even if the scope of the warrant were overbroad in authorizing a search for all guns when there was information only about a specific one, that specific one was a sawed-off shotgun with a pistol grip, owned by a known gang member, who had just fired the weapon five times in public in an attempt to murder another person, on the asserted ground that she had “call[ed] the cops” on him. Id., at 56. Under these circumstances — set forth in the warrant — it would not have been unreasonable for an officer to conclude that there was a “fair probability” that the sawed-off shotgun' was not the only firearm Bowen owned. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 238 (1983). And it certainly would have been reasonable for an officer to assume that Bowen’s sawed-off shotgun was illegal. Cf. 26 U. S. C. § 15845(a), 5861(d). Evidence of one crime is not always evidence of several, but given Bowen’s possession of one illegal gun, his gang membership, his willingness to use the gun to kill someone, and his concern about the police, a reasonable officer could conclude that there would be additional illegal guns among others that Bowen owned.
A reasonable officer also could believe that seizure of the firearms was necessary to prevent further assaults on Kelly. California law allows a magistrate to issue a search warrant for items “in the possession of any person with the intent to use them as a means of committing a public offense,” Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1524(a)(3) (West 2011), and the warrant application submitted by the officers specifically referenced this provision as a basis for the search, App. 48. Bowen had already attempted to murder Kelly once with a firearm, and had yelled “I’ll kill you” as she tried to escape from him. Id., at 56-57. A reasonable officer could conclude that Bowen would make another attempt on Kelly’s life and that he possessed other firearms “with the intent to use them” to that end. § 1524(a)(3).
Given the foregoing, it would not have been “entirely unreasonable” for an officer to believe, in the particular circumstances of this case, that there was probable cause to search for all firearms and firearm-related materials. Leon, supra, at 923 (internal quotation marks omitted).
With respect to the warrant’s authorization to search for evidence of gang membership, the Millenders contend that “no reasonable officer could have believed that the affidavit presented to the magistrate contained a sufficient basis to conclude that the gang paraphernalia sought was contraband or evidence of a crime.” Brief for Respondents 28. They argue that “the magistrate [could not] have reasonably concluded, based on the affidavit, that Bowen’s gang membership had anything to do with the crime under investigation” because “[t]he affidavit described a ‘spousal assault’ that ensued after Kelly decided to end her ‘on going dating relationship’ with Bowen” and “[njothing in that description suggests that the crime was gang-related.” Ibid, (quoting App. 55).
This effort to characterize the case solely as a domestic dispute, however, is misleading. Cf. post, at 564 (Soto-mayor, J., dissenting); post, at 558 (Kagan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Messerschmidt began his affidavit in support of the warrant by explaining that he “has been investigating an assault with a deadly weapon incident” and elaborated that the crime was a “spousal assault and an assault with a deadly weapon.” App. 55 (emphasis added). The affidavit also stated that Bowen was “a known Mona Park Crip gang member” “based on information provided by the victim and the cal-gang database,” and that he had attempted to murder Kelly after becoming enraged that she had “call[ed] the cops on [him].” Id., at 56, 58-59. A reasonable officer could certainly view Bowen’s attack as motivated not by the souring of his romantic relationship with Kelly but instead by a desire to prevent her from disclosing details of his gang activity to the police. She was, after all, no longer linked with him as a girlfriend; he had assaulted her in the past; and she had indeed called the cops on him. And, as the affidavit supporting the warrant made clear, Kelly had in fact given the police information about Bowen’s gang ties. Id., at 59.
It would therefore not have been unreasonable — based on the facts set out in the affidavit — for an officer to believe that evidence regarding Bowen’s gang affiliation would prove helpful in prosecuting him for the attack on Kelly. See Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 307 (1967) (holding that the Fourth Amendment allows a search for evidence when there is “probable cause ... to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction”). Not only would such evidence help to establish motive, either apart from or in addition to any domestic dispute, it would also support the bringing of additional, related charges against Bowen for the assault. See, e. g., Cal. Penal Code Aim. § 136.1(b)(1) (West 1999) (It is a crime to “attempt[ ] to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is witness to a crime from . . . [m]aking any report of that victimization to any . . . law enforcement officer”).
In addition, a reasonable officer could believe that evidence demonstrating Bowen’s membership in a gang might prove help&l in impeaching Bowen or rebutting various defenses he could raise at trial. For example, evidence that Bowen had ties to a gang that uses guns such as the one he used to assault Kelly would certainly be relevant to establish that he had familiarity with or access to this type of weapon.
Moreover, even if this were merely a domestic dispute, a reasonable officer could still conclude that gang paraphernalia found at the Millenders’ residence would aid in the prosecution of Bowen by, for example, demonstrating Bowen’s connection to other evidence found there. The warrant authorized a search for “any gang indicia that would establish the persons being sought in this warrant,” and “[ajrticles of personal property tending to establish the identity of [the] person in control of the premise or premises.” App. 52. Before the District Court, the Millenders “acknowledge^] that evidence of who controlled the premises would be relevant if incriminating evidence were found and it became necessary to tie that evidence to a person,” and the District Court approved that aspect of the warrant on this basis. App. to Pet. for Cert. 158-159 (internal quotation marks omitted). Given Bowen’s known gang affiliation, a reasonable officer could conclude that gang paraphernalia found at the residence would be an effective means of demonstrating Bowen’s control over the premises or his connection to evidence found there.
Whatever the use to which evidence of Bowen’s gang involvement might ultimately have been put, it would not have been “entirely unreasonable” for an officer to believe that the facts set out in the affidavit established a fair probability that such evidence would aid the prosecution of Bowen for the criminal acts at issue. Leon, 468 U. S., at 923 (internal quotation marks omitted).
B
Whether any of these facts, standing alone or taken together, actually establish probable cause is a question we need not decide. Qualified immunity “gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments.” al-Kidd, 563 U. S., at 743. The officers’ judgment that the scope of the warrant was supported by probable cause may have been mistaken, but it was not “plainly incompetent.” Malley, 475 U. S., at 341.
On top of all this, the fact that the officers sought and obtained approval of the warrant application from a superior and a deputy district attorney before submitting it to the Magistrate provides further support for the conclusion that an officer could reasonably have believed that the scope of the warrant was supported by probable cause. Ibid. Before seeking to have the warrant issued by a magistrate, Messerschmidt conducted an extensive investigation into Bowen’s background and the facts of the crime. Based on this investigation, Messerschmidt prepared a detailed warrant application that truthfully laid out the pertinent facts. The only facts omitted — the officers’ knowledge of Bowen’s arrest and conviction records, see supra, at 541 — would only have strengthened the warrant. Messerschmidt then submitted the warrant application for review by Lawrence, another superior officer, and a deputy district attorney, all of whom approved the application without any apparent misgivings. Only after this did Messerschmidt seek the approval of a neutral Magistrate, who issued the requested warrant. The officers thus “took every step that could reasonably be expected of them.” Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U. S. 981, 989 (1984). In light of the foregoing, it cannot be said that “no officer of reasonable competence would have requested the warrant.” Malley, 475 U. S., at 346, n. 9. Indeed, a contrary conclusion would mean not only that Messerschmidt and Lawrence were “plainly incompetent,” id., at 341, but that their supervisor, the deputy district attorney, and the Magistrate were as well.
The Court of Appeals, however, gave no weight to the fact that the warrant had been reviewed and approved by the officers’ superiors, a deputy district attorney, and a neutral Magistrate. Relying on Malley, the court held that the officers had an “independent responsibility to ensure there [was] at least a colorable argument for probable cause.” 620 F. 3d, at 1034. It explained that “[t]he deputies here had a responsibility to exercise their reasonable professional judgment,” and that “in circumstances such as these a neutral magistrate’s approval (and, a fortiori, a non-neutral prosecutor's) cannot absolve an officer of liability.” Ibid, (citation omitted).
We rejected in Malley the contention that an officer is automatically entitled to qualified immunity for seeking a warrant unsupported by probable cause, simply because a magistrate had approved the application. 475 U. S., at 345. And because the officers’ superior and the deputy district attorney are part of the prosecution team, their review also cannot be regarded as dispositive. But by holding in Malley that a magistrate’s approval does not automatically render an officer’s conduct reasonable, we did not suggest that approval by a magistrate or review by others is irrelevant to the objective reasonableness of the officers’ determination that the warrant was valid. Indeed, we expressly noted that we were not deciding “whether [the officer’s] conduct in [that] case was in fact objectively reasonable.” Ibid., n. 8. The fact that the officers secured these approvals is certainly pertinent in assessing whether they could have held a reasonable belief that the warrant was supported by probable cause.
C
In holding that the warrant in this case was so obviously defective that no reasonable officer could have believed it was valid, the court below relied heavily on our decision in Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U. S. 551 (2004), but that precedent is far afield. There, we held that officers who carried out a warrant-approved search were not entitled to qualified immunity because the warrant in question failed to describe the items to be seized at all. Id., at 557. We explained that “[i]n the portion of the form that called for a description of the ‘person or property’ to be seized, [the applicant] typed a description of [the target’s] two-story blue house rather than the alleged stockpile of firearms.” Id., at 554. Thus, the warrant stated nonsensically that “‘there is now concealed [on the specified premises] a certain person or property, namely [a] single dwelling residence two story in height which is blue in color and has two additions attached to the east.’ ” Id., at 554-555, n. 2 (bracketed material in original). Because “even a cursory reading of the warrant in [that] case — perhaps just a simple glance — would have revealed a glaring deficiency that any reasonable police officer would have known was constitutionally fatal,” id., at 564, we held that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity.
The instant case is not remotely similar. In contrast to Groh, any defect here would not have been obvious from the face of the warrant. Rather, any arguable defect would have become apparent only upon a close parsing of the warrant application, and a comparison of the affidavit to the terms of the warrant to determine whether the affidavit established probable cause to search for all the items listed in the warrant. This is not an error that “just a simple glance” would have revealed. Ibid. Indeed, unlike in Groh, the officers here did not merely submit their application to a magistrate. They also presented it for review by a superior officer, and a deputy district attorney, before submitting it to the Magistrate. The fact that none of the officials who reviewed the application expressed concern about its validity demonstrates that any error was not obvious. Groh plainly does not control the result here.
⅜* ⅝ ⅝
The question in this case is not whether the Magistrate erred in believing there was sufficient probable cause to support the scope of the warrant he issued. It is instead whether the Magistrate so obviously erred that any reasonable officer would have recognized the error. The occasions on which this standard will be met may be rare, but so too are the circumstances in which it will be appropriate to impose personal liability on a lay officer in the face of judicial approval of his actions. Even if the warrant in this case were invalid, it was not so obviously lacking in probable cause that the officers can be considered “plainly incompetent” for concluding otherwise. Malley, supra, at 341. The judgment of the Court of Appeals denying the officers qualified immunity must therefore be reversed.
It is so ordered.
Although Leon involved the proper application of the exclusionary rule to remedy a Fourth Amendment violation, we have held that “the same standard of objective reasonableness that we applied in the context of a suppression hearing in Leon defines the qualified immunity accorded an officer” who obtained or relied on an allegedly invalid warrant. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335,344 (1986) (citation omitted); Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U. S. 551, 565, n. 8 (2004).
The dissent relies almost entirely on facts outside the affidavit, including Messerschmidt’s deposition testimony, post, at 563, 569 (opinion of So-tomayor, J.), crime analysis forms, post, at 563, Kelly’s interview, post, at 564-565, and n. 5, Messerschmidt’s notes regarding Kelly’s interview, post, at 564-565, n. 5, and even several briefs filed in the District Court and the Court of Appeals, post, at 566, 570. In contrast, the dissent cites the probable-cause affidavit itself only twice. See post, at 570-571. There is no contention before us that the affidavit was misleading in omitting any of the facts on which the dissent relies. Cf. Leon, 468 U. S., at 923.
The dissent caricatures our analysis as being that “because Bowen fired one firearm, it was reasonable for the police to conclude . . . that [he] must have possessed others,” post, at 569 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.). This simply avoids coming to grips with the facts of the crime at issue.
Although the cal-gang database states that information contained therein cannot be used to establish probable cause, see App. 64, the affidavit makes clear that Kelly also provided this information to Messerschmidt, id., at 59, as she did to the deputies who initially responded to the attack, id., at 39 (describing Kelly’s statement that Bowen was “an active member of the ‘Mona Park Crips’ ”). We therefore need not decide whether the cal-gang database’s disclaimer is relevant to Fourth Amendment analysis.
Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, see post, at 564-565, n. 5 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.), the affidavit’s account of Bowen’s statements is consistent with other accounts of the confrontation, in particular the report prepared by the officers who spoke with Kelly immediately after the attack. See App. 39 (stating that when Bowen “appeared at the base of the stairs and began yelling at [Kelly,] [h]e was angry because she had called the Sheriff’s Department”). And at no point during this litigation has the accuracy of the affidavit’s account of the attack been called into question.
The dissent relies heavily on Messersehmidt’s deposition, in which he stated that Bowen’s crime was not a “gang crime.” See post, at 562, 563, 565-566. Messerschmidt’s belief about the nature of the crime, however, is not information he possessed but a conclusion he reached based on information known tó him. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 641 (1987). We have “eschew[ed] inquiries into the subjective beliefs of law enforcement officers who seize evidence pursuant to a subsequently invalidated warrant.” United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897,922, n. 23 (1984); see also Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 815-819 (1982). In any event, as the dissent recognizes, the inquiry under our precedents is whether “a reasonably well-trained officer in petitioner’s position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause.” Malley, 475 U. S., at 345 (emphasis added). Messerschmidt’s own evaluation does not answer the question whether it would have been unreasonable for an officer to have reached a different conclusion from the facts in the affidavit. See n. 2, supra.
The Fourth Amendment does not require probable cause to believe evidence will conclusively establish a fact before permitting a search, but only “probable cause ... to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction.” Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 307 (1967) (emphasis added). Even if gang evidence might have turned out not to be conclusive because other members of the Millender household also had gang ties, see post, at 567 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.); post, at 558 (opinion of Kagan, J.), a reasonable officer could still conclude that evidence of gang membership would help show Bowen’s connection to the residence. Such evidence could, for example, have displayed Bowen’s gang moniker (“C Jay”) or could have been identified by Kelly as belonging to Bowen. See App. 64. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the state associated with the petitioner. If the petitioner is a federal court or federal judge, note the "state" as the United States. The same holds for other federal employees or officials. | What state is associated with the petitioner? | [
"Alabama",
"Alaska",
"American Samoa",
"Arizona",
"Arkansas",
"California",
"Colorado",
"Connecticut",
"Delaware",
"District of Columbia",
"Federated States of Micronesia",
"Florida",
"Georgia",
"Guam",
"Hawaii",
"Idaho",
"Illinois",
"Indiana",
"Iowa",
"Kansas",
"Kentucky",
"Louisiana",
"Maine",
"Marshall Islands",
"Maryland",
"Massachusetts",
"Michigan",
"Minnesota",
"Mississippi",
"Missouri",
"Montana",
"Nebraska",
"Nevada",
"New Hampshire",
"New Jersey",
"New Mexico",
"New York",
"North Carolina",
"North Dakota",
"Northern Mariana Islands",
"Ohio",
"Oklahoma",
"Oregon",
"Palau",
"Pennsylvania",
"Puerto Rico",
"Rhode Island",
"South Carolina",
"South Dakota",
"Tennessee",
"Texas",
"Utah",
"Vermont",
"Virgin Islands",
"Virginia",
"Washington",
"West Virginia",
"Wisconsin",
"Wyoming",
"United States",
"Interstate Compact",
"Philippines",
"Indian",
"Dakota"
] | [
5
] | sc |
NELSON, WARDEN v. GEORGE
No. 595.
Argued March 31, 1970
Decided June 29, 1970
Louise H. Renne, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Edward P. O’Brien, Deputy Attorney General.
George A. Gumming, Jr., by appointment of the Court, 397 U. S. 901, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted the writ in this case to consider whether the respondent, presently confined in California under a state conviction, may utilize the federal courts in California to test the validity of a North Carolina sentence before beginning to serve that sentence and while under a detainer filed by North Carolina. Respondent claims the sentence yet to be served in North Carolina is “consecutive” under Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 (1968). However, since his petition challenges the present effect being given the North Carolina detainer by the California authorities, particularly with respect to granting him parole, we have concluded that as to that claim respondent failed to exhaust his state remedies and accordingly do not reach the question for which the writ was granted.
The record discloses that on April 27, 1964, John Edward George was convicted on a plea of guilty in a California court of first-degree robbery. He began serving his sentence of five years to life at San Quentin. Following his conviction, detainers were filed in California by the States of Kansas, Nevada, and North Carolina, on June 4, 10, and 11, 1964, respectively.
Exercising his right under Article III (a) of the interstate “Agreement on Detainers,” George requested temporary release to stand trial on the underlying robbery charge pending in North Carolina. Accordingly, on July 20, 1966, he was released to North Carolina authorities and transported there to stand trial. The North Carolina trial was held, and on February 8, 1967, George was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 12 to 15 years. The conviction was thereafter affirmed, State v. George, 271 N. C. 438, 156 S. E. 2d 845 (1967).
Following the North Carolina trial George was returned to San Quentin to complete service of his California sentence. On April 14, 1967, the clerk of the Gaston County Superior Court addressed a letter to the Records Officer at San Quentin advising that George was “wanted at the termination of his imprisonment there for return to this jurisdiction to serve the sentence imposed in the Superior Court of Gaston County, North Carolina.” The Warden of San Quentin acknowledged the detainer, indicating that it was “noted in our records.”
George then brought a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in which he sought to attack not his California conviction, for which he was then incarcerated, but the North Carolina conviction for which the detainer had been filed. The District Court denied the application by order dated March 1, 1968, on the ground that McNally v. Hill, 293 U. S. 131 (1934), foreclosed habeas corpus relief on the North Carolina conviction while George was still in custody under the prior California judgment.
George filed a petition for rehearing in the District Court in which he argued that even though he was actually serving time in a California jail and thus not technically serving his North Carolina sentence, habeas corpus was not foreclosed since the North Carolina detainer operated as a form of constructive custody. In support of his contention he drew upon the language in Arketa v. Wilson, 373 F. 2d 582 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1967), to the effect that the strict rule of McNally v. Hill had been somewhat eroded by this Court’s subsequent decisions in Ex parte Hull, 312 U. S. 546 (1941), and Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U. S. 236 (1963), and that “it appears that there are situations in which the writ can be used to free a petitioner from a certain type of custody, rather than from all custody.” Arketa v. Wilson, supra, at 584. George argued that the North Carolina warrant was “a form of custody” since it affected his custodial classification and probability of parole on his California sentence. On March 20, 1968, the District Court denied the petition for rehearing and George appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Our decision in Peyton v. Rowe intervened. In that case we overruled McNally v. Hill, 293 U. S. 131 (1934), and held that a state prisoner serving consecutive sentences in the forum state is “in custody” under each sentence for purposes of jurisdiction for collateral attack under 28 U. S. C. § 2241 (c)(3), thus permitting a federal habeas corpus action to test a future state sentence while he is serving an earlier sentence. In Peyton v. Rowe the consecutive sentences were imposed by the forum State, and the sentences were being served in that State’s prison. Unlike the case now before us, in such a single-state situation the challenge to the continuing vitality of Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188 (1948), does not arise. See Word v. North Carolina, 406 F. 2d 352 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1969).
As we have noted, having named the Warden of San Quentin as the respondent in his amended petition to the Federal District Court in California and having had his petition refused, George sought rehearing. In that application George alleged that the California authorities had imposed upon him a “form of custody” because of the North Carolina detainer. Specifically, he alleged that the mere presence of the detainer adversely affected the probability of his securing parole and the degree of security in which he was detained by state authorities. California denies that the existence of the detainer has any consequences affecting his parole potential or custodial status.
Since the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require that sister States enforce a foreign penal judgment, Huntington v. AttrilL, 146 U. S. 657 (1892); cf. Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U. S. 268, 279 (1935), California is free to consider what effect, if any, it will give to the North Carolina detainer in terms of George’s present “custody.” Because the petition for rehearing raised precisely such a challenge to the California “custody,” a matter that has not yet been presented to the California courts, we conclude that respondent George has not yet exhausted his California remedies. See Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241 (1886).
Respondent insists that the very presence of the North Carolina detainer has and will continue to have an adverse impact on California’s consideration of his claim for parole. Therefore, the United States District Court in California should retain jurisdiction of the petition for habeas corpus relief pending respondent’s further application to the California courts for whatever relief, if any, may be available and appropriate if he establishes his claim that North Carolina’s detainer interferes with relief that might, in the absence of the detainer, be granted by California. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent it finds jurisdiction in the District Court to consider respondent’s claims with respect to the impact of the detainer if respondent elects to press those claims after he exhausts his remedies in the California courts.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Under California law the sentence for first-degree robbery is an indeterminate five years to life sentence in the discretion of the California Adult Authority. Cal. Pen. Code § 213.
Cal. Pen. Code § 1389 (Supp. 1968).
App. 26.
Ҥ 2241. Power to grant writ.
“(a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions. The order of a circuit judge shall be entered in the records of the district court of the district wherein the restraint complained of is had.
“(e) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless—
“(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States . . .
In that case Chief Judge Haynsworth, expressing the views of the majority of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit sitting en banc, concluded that Ahrens v. Clark was a venue decision, and that the physical presence of the petitioner within the district was not an invariable requirement if rigid adherence to the rule would leave one in prison without an effective remedy. .The legislative history of the 1966 amendments to 28 U. S. C. § 2241 (d) (1964 ed., Supp. V) suggests that Congress may have intended to endorse and preserve the territorial rule of Ahrens to the extent that it was not altered by those amendments. See H. R. Rep. No. 1894, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 1-2 (1966). See also S. Rep. No. 1502, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). Those changes were made by Congress, of course, prior to our decision in Peyton v. Rome; necessarily Congress could not have had the multistate problem with which we are now confronted in mind. Whether, in light of the legislative history of § 2241 (d) and the changed circumstances brought about by Peyton v. Rowe, the rigor of our Ahrens holding may be reconsidered is an issue upon which we reserve judgment.
However, we note that prisoners under sentence of a federal court are confronted with no such dilemma since they may bring a challenge at any time in the sentencing court irrespective of where they may be incarcerated. 28 U. S. C. § 2255, It is anomalous that the federal statutory scheme does not contemplate affording state prisoners that remedy. The obvious, logical, and practical solution is an amendment to § 2241 to remedy the shortcoming that has become apparent following the holding in Peyton v. Rowe. Sound judicial administration calls for such an amendment.
We are not here concerned with the scope of California’s ultimate duty, imposed by Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution, to extradite persons wanted for trial or execution of sentence in a sister State. We note only that, until the obligation to extradite matures, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require California to enforce the North Carolina penal judgment in any way. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether the petitioning party (i.e., the plaintiff or the appellant) emerged victorious. The victory the Supreme Court provided the petitioning party may not have been total and complete (e.g., by vacating and remanding the matter rather than an unequivocal reversal), but the disposition is nonetheless a favorable one. Consider that the petitioning party lost if the Supreme Court affirmed or dismissed the case, or denied the petition. Consider that the petitioning party won in part or in full if the Supreme Court reversed, reversed and remanded, vacated and remanded, affirmed and reversed in part, affirmed and reversed in part and remanded, or vacated the case. | Consider that the petitioning party lost if the Supreme Court affirmed or dismissed the case, or denied the petition. Consider that the petitioning party won in part or in full if the Supreme Court reversed, reversed and remanded, vacated and remanded, affirmed and reversed in part, affirmed and reversed in part and remanded, or vacated the case. Did the petitioning win the case? | [
"Yes",
"No"
] | [
1
] | sc |
HARRIS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 14.
Argued October 16, 1950.
Decided November 27, 1950.
Irwin N. Wilpon argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Lee A. Jackson argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Caudle, Ellis N. Slack and I. Henry Kutz.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The federal estate tax and the federal gift tax, as held in a line of cases ending with Commissioner v. Wemyss, 324 U. S. 303, and Merrill v. Fahs, 324 U. S. 308, are construed in pari materia, since the purpose of the gift tax is to complement the estate tax by preventing tax-free depletion of the transferor’s estate during his lifetime. Both the gift tax and the estate tax exclude transfers made for “an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth.” In the estate tax this requirement is limited to deductions for claims based upon “a promise or agreement”; but the consideration for the “promise or agreement” may not be the release of marital rights in the decedent’s property. In the Wemyss and Merrill cases the question was whether the gift tax was applicable to premarital property settlements. If the standards of the estate tax were to be applied ex proprio vigore in gift tax cases, those transfers would be taxable because there was a “promise or agreement” touching marital rights in property. We sustained the tax, thus giving “adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth” the same meaning under both statutes insofar as premarital property settlements or agreements are concerned.
The present case raises the question whether Wemyss and Merrill require the imposition of the gift tax in the type of post-nuptial settlement of property rights involved here.
Petitioner divorced her husband, Reginald Wright, in Nevada in 1943. Both she and her husband had substantial property interests. They reached an understanding as respects the unscrambling of those interests, the settlement of all litigated claims to the separate properties, the assumption of obligations, and the transfer of properties.
Wright received from petitioner the creation of a trust for his lifetime of the income from her remainder interest in a then-existing trust; an assumption by her of an in-débtedness of his of $47,650; and her promise to pay him $416.66 a month for ten years.
Petitioner received from Wright 21/90 of certain real property in controversy; a discontinuance of a partition suit then pending; an indemnification from and assumption by him of all liability on a bond and mortage on certain real property in London, England; and an indemnification against liability in connection with certain real property in the agreement. It was found that the value of the property transferred to Wright exceeded that received by petitioner by $107,150. The Commissioner assessed a gift tax on the theory that any rights which Wright might have given up by entering into the agreement could not be adequate and full consideration.
If the parties had without 'more gone ahead and voluntarily unravelled their business interests on the basis of this compromise, there would be no question that the gift tax would be payable. For there would have been a “promise or agreement” that effected a relinquishment of marital rights in property. It therefore would fall under the ban of the provision of the estate tax which by judicial construction has been incorporated into the gift tax statute.
But the parties did not simply undertake a voluntary contractual division of their property interests. They were faced with the fact that Nevada law not only authorized but instructed the divorce court to decree a just and equitable disposition of both the community and the separate property of the parties. The agreement recited that it was executed in order to effect a settlement of the respective property rights of the parties “in the event a divorce should be decreed”; and it provided that the agreement should be submitted to the divorce court “for its approval.” It went on to say, “It is of the essence of this agreement that the settlement herein provided for shall not become operative in any manner nor shall any of the Recitals or covenants herein become binding upon either party unless a decree of absolute divorce between the parties shall be entered in the pending Nevada action.”
If the agreement had stopped there and were in fact submitted to the court, it is clear that the gift tax would not be applicable. That arrangement would not be a “promise or agreement” in the statutory sense. It would be wholly conditional upon the entry of the decree; the divorce court might or might not accept the provisions of the arrangement as the measure of the respective obligations ; it might indeed add to or subtract from them. The decree, not the arrangement submitted to the court, would fix the rights and obligations of the parties. That was the theory of Commissioner v. Maresi, 156 F. 2d 929, and we think it sound.
Even the Commissioner concedes that that result would be correct in case the property settlement was litigated in the divorce action. That was what happened in Commissioner v. Converse, 163 F. 2d 131, where' the divorce court decreed a lump-sum award in lieu of monthly payments provided by the separation agreement. Yet without the decree there would be no enforceable, existing agreement whether the settlement was litigated or unliti-gated. Both require the approval of the court before an obligation arises. The happenstance that the divorce court might approve the entire settlement, or modify it in unsubstantial details, or work out material changes seems to us unimportant. In each case it is the decree that creates the rights and the duties; and a decree is not a “promise or agreement” in any sense — popular or statutory.
But the present case is distinguished by reason of a further provision in the undertaking and in the decree. The former provided that “the covenants in this agreement shall survive any decree of divorce which may be entered.” And the decree stated “It is ordered that said agreement and said trust agreements forming a part thereof shall survive this decree.” The Court of Appeals turned the case on those provisions. It concluded that since there were two sanctions for the payments and transfers — contempt under the divorce decree and execution under the contract — they were founded not only on the decree but upon both the decree and a “promise or agreement.” It therefore held the excess of the value of the property which petitioner gave her husband over what he gave her to be taxable as a gift. 178 F. 2d 861.
We, however, think that the gift tax statute is concerned with the source of rights, not with the manner in which rights at some distant time may be enforced. Remedies for enforcement will vary from state to state. It is “the transfer” of the property with which the gift tax statute is concerned, not the sanctions which the law supplies to enforce transfers. If “the transfer” of marital rights in property is effected by the parties, it is pursuant to a “promise or agreement” in the meaning of the statute. If “the transfer” is effected by court decree, no “promise or agreement” of the parties is the operative fact. In no realistic sense is a court decree a “promise or agreement” between the parties to a litigation. If finer, more legalistic lines are to be drawn, Congress must do it.
If, as we hold, the case is free from any “promise or agreement” concerning marital rights in property, it presents no remaining problems of difficulty. The Treasury Regulations recognize as tax free “a sale, exchange, or other transfer of property made in the ordinary course of business (a transaction which is bona fide, at arm’s length, and free from any donative intent).” This transaction is not “in the ordinary course of business” in any conventional sense. Few transactions between husband and wife ever would be; and those under the aegis of a divorce court are not. But if two partners on dissolution of the firm entered into a transaction of this character or if chancery did it for them, there would seem to be no doubt that the unscrambling of the business interests would satisfy the spirit of the Regulations. No reason is apparent why husband and wife should be under a heavier handicap absent a statute which brings all marital property settlements under the gift tax.
We are now advised that since submission of the case on October 16, 1950, petitioner has died, and that it will take some weeks before an administrator of her estate can be appointed. Accordingly we enter our judgment as of October 16, 1950, in pursuance of the practice obtaining in those circumstances. See Mitchell v. Overman, 103 U. S. 62, 64-65; McDonald v. Maxwell, 274 U. S. 91, 99.
Reversed.
Section 1002 of 26 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) provides: “Where property is transferred for less than an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth, then the amount by which the value of the property exceeded the value of the consideration shall, for the purpose of the tax imposed by this chapter, be deemed a gift, and shall be included in computing the amount of gifts made during the calendar year.” (Italics added.)
Section 812 of 26 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) provides: “For the purpose of the tax the value of the net estate shall be determined, in the case of a citizen or resident of the United States by deducting from the value of the gross estate — . . . (b) Expenses, losses, indebtedness, and taxes. Such amounts — . . . (3) for claims against the estate, (4) for unpaid mortgages upon, or any indebtedness in respect to, property where the value of decedent’s interest therein, undiminished by such mortgage or indebtedness, is included in the value of the gross estate, ... as are allowed by the laws of the jurisdiction, whether within or without the United States, under which the estate is being administered,' but not including any income taxes upon income received after the death of the decedent, or property taxes not accrued before his death, or any estate, succession, legacy, or inheritance taxes. The deduction herein allowed in the case of claims against the estate, unpaid mortgages, or any indebtedness shall, when founded upon a promise or agreement, be limited to the extent that they were contracted bona fide and for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth .... For the purposes of this subchapter, a relinquishment or promised relinquishment of dower, curtesy, or of a statutory estate created in lieu of dower or curtesy, or of other marital rights in the decedent’s property or estate, shall not be considered to any extent a consideration ‘in money or money’s worth.’ ” (Italics added.)
See § 812 (b) supra, note 2.
Ibid.
See § 812 (b) supra, note 2.
At the time of the divorce Nevada Compiled Laws (Supp. 1931-1941) § 9463 provided: “In granting a divorce, the court may award such alimony to the wife and shall make such disposition of the community and separate property of the parties as shall appear just and equitable, having regard to the respective merits of the parties and to the condition in which they will be left by such divorce, and to the party through whom the property was acquired, and to the burdens, if any, imposed upon it for the benefit of the children. . . ."
Section 1000 of 26 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) provides: “(a) For the calendar year 1940 and each calendar year thereafter a tax, computed as provided in section 1001, shall be imposed upon the transfer during such calendar year by any individual, resident or nonresident, of property by gift. ... (b) The tax shall apply whether the transfer is in trust or otherwise, whether the gift is direct or indirect, and whether the property is real or personal, tangible or intangible; but, in the case of a nonresident not a citizen of the United States, shall apply to a transfer only if the property is situated within the United States.” (Italics added.)
Section 86.8 of Treas. Reg. 108 provides: “Transfers reached by the statute are not confined to those only which, being without a valuable consideration, accord with the common law concept of gifts, but embrace as well sales, exchanges, and other dispositions of property for a consideration in money or money’s worth to the extent that the value of the property-transferred by the donor exceeds the value of the consideration given therefor. However, a sale, exchange, or other transfer of property made in the ordinary course of business (a transaction which is bona fide, at arm’s length, and free from any donative intent), will be considered as made for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth. A consideration not reducible to a money value, as love and affection, promise of marriage, etc., is to be wholly disregarded, and the entire value of the property transferred constitutes the amount of the gift.” | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. If the case arose under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, note the source as "United States Supreme Court". If the case arose in a state court, note the source as "State Supreme Court", "State Appellate Court", or "State Trial Court". Do not code the name of the state. | What is the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims"
] | [
20
] | sc |
CARLISLE v. UNITED STATES
No. 94-9247.
Argued January 16, 1996
Decided April 29, 1996
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 434. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Souter and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 434. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy, J., joined, post, p. 436.
James A. Christopherson argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Joel R. Myler.
Paul A. Engelmayer argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and David S. Kris.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a district court has authority to grant a postverdict motion for judgment of acquittal filed one day outside the time limit prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c).
I
Petitioner Charles Carlisle, along with several co-defendants, was tried by jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§ 841, 846, 84 Stat. 1260, 1265. He did not move during the trial for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a). On July 13,1993, the jury returned a guilty verdict and was discharged. On July 23, 1993, Carlisle filed a “Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c),” arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. App. 6-9. Rule 29(c) provides that “a motion for judgment of acquittal may be made or renewed within 7 days after the jury is discharged or within such further time as the court may fix during the 7-day period.” Excluding the intermediate Saturday and Sunday (as Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(a) requires), the 7-day period in this case ended on July 22,1993. The United States’ response to Car-lisle’s motion argued that it should be denied as untimely and, alternatively, that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. The District Court denied Carlisle’s motion on August 19, 1993. Its written opinion did not address the timeliness issue, but concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Carlisle knew about, and knowingly and voluntarily joined, the charged conspiracy.
When Carlisle appeared for sentencing on October 14, 1993, the District Court announced that it was reversing its ruling. When it made its decision in August, the court said, it had prepared two opinions, one granting and one denying the motion, and it had now decided to substitute the former for the latter. The court subsequently entered an order that :(i) withdrew the opinion and order denying the motion to acquit and (ii) granted “Carlisle’s motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29(c), filed July 23, 1993.” App. 45. An opinion accompanying the order concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Carlisle knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana. In a footnote, the opinion acknowledged that the motion for judgment of acquittal was filed one day late, but concluded:
"... I can conceive of no prejudice to the United States which will result from consideration of a motion that is one day lat[e] in this case. Because I believe that refusal to hear this motion would result in grave injustice, and because [Rule 29(c)] permits the Court to extend the deadline, I will consider this motion as if it were filed in a timely manner.” Id., at 37.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment of acquittal and remanded to the District Court for reinstatement of the jury’s verdict and for sentencing. It held that under Rule 29 a district court has no jurisdiction to grant an untimely motion for judgment of acquittal, and that a district court has no jurisdiction to enter a judgment of acquittal sua sponte after the case has been submitted to the jury. 48 F. 3d 190,192 (1995). We granted certiorari. 515 U. S. 1191 (1995).
II
Petitioner argues that district courts “should be given the power to go outside the strict time limits of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c)” when (1) there is a claim that the defendant was legally innocent, (2) the motion is filed prior to sentencing, and (3) the motion was not timely filed because of attorney error. Brief for Petitioner 8. Petitioner seeks to root this argument in, among other places, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Rule 29 is reproduced in its entirety below. Subdivision (c) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f the jury returns a verdict of guilty..., a motion for judgment of acquittal may be made or renewed within 7 days after the jury is discharged or within such further time as the court may fix during the 7-day period.” Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b) provides that whereas certain untimely acts may be accorded validity upon a showing of excusable neglect, “the court may not extend the time for taking any action under Rul[e] 29 ... except to the extent and under the conditions stated in [the Rule].” These Rules are plain and unambiguous. If, as in this case, a guilty verdict is returned, a motion for judgment of acquittal must be filed, either within seven days of the jury’s discharge, or within an extended period fixed by the court during that 7-day period. There is simply no room in the text of Rules 29 and 45(b) for the granting of an untimely postverdict motion for judgment of acquittal, regardless of whether the motion is accompanied by a claim of legal innocence, is filed before sentencing, or was filed late because of attorney error.
Unable to offer any reading of Rule 29(c) that would permit an untimely motion for judgment of acquittal to be granted, Carlisle contends that Rule 29(a) gives a district court authority to enter a judgment of acquittal sua sponte at any time before sentencing. Rule 29(a), entitled “Motion Before Submission to Jury,” provides in relevant part:
“The court on motion of a defendant or of its own motion shall order the entry of judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment or information after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses.”
It would be quite a surprise to find a district court’s sua sponte power to grant judgment of acquittal after submission of the case to the jury hidden away in a provision entitled “Motion Before Submission to Jury.” We are not inclined to adopt an interpretation that creates such a surprise unless the intent that the text exceed its caption is clear. Here, to the contrary, the structure of Rule 29 indicates that subdivision (a) is limited as its caption says.
Petitioner’s proposed reading would create an odd system in which defense counsel could move for judgment of acquittal for only seven days after the jury’s discharge, but the court’s power to enter such a judgment would linger. In United States v. Smith, 331 U. S. 469 (1947), we declined to read former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, which placed a 5-day limit on the making of a motion for new trial, as “permitting] the judge to order retrial without request and at any time,” 331 U. S., at 473. “[I]t would be a strange rule,” we said, “which deprived a judge of power to do what was asked when request was made by the person most concerned, and yet allowed him to act without petition,” and such an arrangement “would almost certainly subject trial judges to private appeals or application by counsel or friends of one convicted,” id., at 474, 475. The same is true here. In addition, petitioner’s reading makes a farce of subdivision (b) of Rule 29, which provides that a court may reserve decision on the motion for judgment of acquittal and decide it after submission to the jury. There would be no need for this procedure if, even without reserving, the court had continuing power to grant judgment of acquittal on its own. In sum, even without the captions (and a fortiori with them) it is clear that subdivisions (a) and (b) of Rule 29 pertain to motions made before submission, and subdivisions (c) and (d) to motions made after discharge.
The Government offers an alternative theory of a court’s power to act sua sponte under Rule 29: Because Rule 29(a) refers to both a “motion of a defendant” and a court’s “own motion,” whereas Rule 29(c) refers only to “a motion” simpli-citer, the latter must refer to motions both of defendants and of courts, permitting both such “motions” to be made within seven days after the jury’s discharge. We do not find this reading plausible. Rule 29(c) not only provides that “a motion for judgment of acquittal” may be made or renewed within seven days after the jury is discharged. It goes on to provide, in its second and third sentences: “If a verdict of guilty is returned the court may on such motion set aside the verdict and enter judgment of acquittal. If no verdict is returned the court may enter judgment of acquittal.” The phrase “on such motion” is notably absent from the third sentence — conveying the idea that, where a jury has not returned a verdict, a court can act without motion, but where a jury has returned a guilty verdict, it cannot. But if “on such motion” includes action taken by a court on its own initiative, the limiting phrase “on such motion” in the second sentence has no effect, and a court may act on its own whether or not a verdict has been returned. That is to say, the inclusion of the phrase “on such motion” in one sentence but not in the other would be inexplicable.
Petitioner contends that even if Rule 29 does not permit a court to grant an untimely motion for judgment of acquittal, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 2 vests the court with supervisory power to enter judgment of acquittal. Rule 2 provides:
“These rules are intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding. They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.”
This Rule is of no aid to petitioner. It sets forth a principle of interpretation to be used in construing ambiguous rules, not a principle of law superseding clear rules that do not achieve the stated objectives. It does not, that is to say, provide that rules shall be construed to mean something other than what they plainly say — which is what petitioner’s proposed construction of Rule 29(c) would require.
We must acknowledge that there is precedent in this Court for using Rule 2 as a basis for deviating from time limits imposed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In Fallen v. United States, 378 U. S. 139 (1964), we cited Rule 2 in the course of excusing the failure of an incarcerated paraplegic pro se petitioner to comply with the time limit for filing a notice of appeal under former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(a). Concluding that the petitioner “had done all that could reasonably be expected” to file a timely appeal, including mailing a notice of appeal to the clerk’s office two days before the notice was due, we “decline[d] to read the Rules so rigidly as to bar a determination of his appeal on the merits.” 378 U. S., at 144. Fallen has been made obsolete by an amendment to Rule 37(a). And of course Fallen was a narrow ruling when it was announced, as is evident from Berman v. United States, 378 U. S. 530 (1964) (per curiam), a decision announced on the same day as Fallen, summarily affirming the dismissal of an appeal that had been filed one day late.
Finally, petitioner cannot rely on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 57 as the source of the District Court’s authority in this case. The version of Rule 57 in effect when criminal proceedings against petitioner commenced (and which he relied upon at oral argument) states, in relevant part, that, “[i]n all cases not provided for by rule, the district judges ... may regulate their practice in any manner not inconsistent with these rules.” The relevant portion of the current version of Rule 57 is captioned “Procedure When There Is No Controlling Law,” and states: “A judge may regulate practice in any manner consistent with federal law, these rules, and local rules of the district.” Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 57(b). We need not decide which version of this Rule controls the present case, because neither authorizes the District Court’s action here. A rule permitting a party to submit and prevail on an untimely motion for judgment of acquittal is “inconsistent” (or not “consistent”) with Rule 29’s 7-day filing limit; and the question of when a motion for judgment of acquittal may be granted does not present a case “not provided for” by Rule 29; and Rule 29 is the “controlling law” governing this question.
III
As alternative authority for the District Court s action, petitioner invokes courts’ “inherent supervisory power.” Brief for Petitioner 9. We have recognized that federal courts “may, within limits, formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or the Congress.” United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S. 499, 605 (1983). Whatever the scope of this “inherent power,” however, it does not include the power to develop rules that circumvent or conflict with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. As we recognized in Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U. S. 250, 254-255 (1988), holding that federal courts may not invoke supervisory power to circumvent Rule 52(a): “[Fjederal courts have no more discretion to disregard the Rule’s mandate than they do to disregard constitutional or statutory provisions.” Whether the action of the District Court here is described as the granting of an untimely motion, or the sua sponte entry of a judgment of acquittal, it contradicted the plain language of Rule 29(c), and effectively annulled the 7-day filing limit.
In Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U. S. 32, 47 (1991), we said that we would not ‘“lightly assume that Congress has intended to depart from established principles’ such as the scope of a court’s inherent power,” id., at 47 (quoting Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 313 (1982)). Similarly, in Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U. S. 626, 629-632 (1962), we said that since a district court’s authority to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution was a “sanction of wide usage,” we would not assume, in the absence of a clear expression, that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allowed a party to move for dismissal for lack of prosecution, abrogated this “long ... unquestioned” power. That cautionary principle does not apply in the present case, not only because of the clarity of the text, but also because we are unaware of any “long unquestioned” power of federal district courts to acquit for insufficient evidence sua sponte, after return of a guilty verdict. Indeed, we are aware of only two cases prior to the enactment of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that could be read as asserting in dictum the existence of such a power. United States v. McCracken, 26 F. Cas. 1069, 1069 (No. 15,664) (ED Va. 1878); United States v. Hayden, 26 F. Cas. 236, 238 (No. 15,333) (NDNY 1877).
The case law of this Court that petitioner relies upon does not establish any “inherent power” to act in contravention of applicable Rules. In Gaca v. United States, 411 U. S. 618 (1978) (per curiam), which reinstated an appeal that had been dismissed for want of timely prosecution, there was no suggestion that reinstatement was contrary to any statute or rule of procedure. And in United States v. Nobles, 422 U. S. 225 (1975), which approved exercise of a District Court’s inherent authority to order the disclosure of certain witness statements, we felt it necessary to make sure that such exercise did not conflict with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. Petitioner’s best case is Thompson v. INS, 375 U. S. 384 (1964), which, contrary to former Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73(a), gave effect to a notice of appeal filed more than 60 days from the entry of judgment. Thompson, however, is not pertinent here, since it expressly relied upon the “ ‘unique circumstances’ ” that the cause of the failure to meet the Rule’s deadline was an erroneous ruling or assurance by the District Court itself. 375 U. S., at 387 (quoting Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U. S. 215, 217 (1962) (per curiam)).
IV
Petitioner’s three remaining arguments need not detain us long. First, he argues that the District Court had power to enter a judgment of acquittal in this case under the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651, through the writ of coram nobis. Apart from the fact that the District Court was not asked to issue, and did not purport to be issuing, a writ of comm nobis, that writ would not have lain here, since it was traditionally available only to bring before the court factual errors “material to the validity and regularity of the legal proceeding itself,” such as the defendant’s being under age or having died before the verdict. See United States v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55, 67-68 (1914). Moreover, “[t]he All Writs Act is a residual source of authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute. Where a statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is controlling.” Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. United States Marshals Service, 474 U. S. 34, 43 (1985). As we noted a few years after enactment of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, “it is difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case today where [a writ of coram nobis] would be necessary or appropriate.” United States v. Smith, 331 U. S., at 475, n. 4. In the present case, Rule 29 provides the applicable law.
Second, petitioner asserts that the failure to allow the District Court to enter a judgment of acquittal would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. His argument on this point consists of nothing more than bald assertions that Rule 29(c) as applied to the facts of this case transgresses principles of fundamental fairness, “shocks the conscience,” and interferes with rights “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Brief for Petitioner 28-29 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390 (1993); Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 172 (1952); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325-326 (1937)). Petitioner has failed to proffer any historical, textual, or controlling precedential support for his argument that the inability of a district court to grant an untimely postverdict motion for judgment of acquittal violates the Fifth Amendment, and we decline to fashion a new due process right out of thin air.
Third, petitioner argues that prohibiting a district court from granting a motion for judgment of acquittal filed one day late will lead to needless appeals and habeas corpus proceedings, where it will be more difficult for defendants to obtain relief than in motions directed to the trial court. Assuming, arguendo, that these contentions are accurate, we cannot permit them to alter our analysis, for we are not at liberty to ignore the mandate of Rule 29 in order to obtain “optimal” policy results. Cf. United States v. Robinson, 361 U. S. 220, 229-230 (1960). We are similarly unmoved by petitioner’s contention that the “rationale” behind Rule 29(c)’s time limit does not apply where the motion for judgment of acquittal is filed a mere eight days after the trial. The only evident “rationale” behind Rule 29(c)’s 7-day time limit is that a motion for judgment of acquittal filed eight days after trial is a motion filed one day later than justice and equity demand. As we said in a case involving the filing deadline of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U. S. C. § 1744 (1988 ed.): “If 1-day late filings are acceptable, 10-day late filings might be equally acceptable, and so on in a cascade of exceptions that would engulf the rule erected by the filing deadline; yet regardless of where the cutoff line is set, some individuals will always fall just on the other side of it.” United States v. Locke, 471 U. S. 84, 101 (1985).
V
Finally, we may respond to some of the many arguments put forward by the dissent. The dissent makes the sweeping assertion that “a district court clearly has the inherent authority to ensure that a legally innocent defendant is not wrongfully convicted,” post, at 442. Perhaps so. As the dissent itself recognizes, however, that power has come to an end once an appeal has been taken. Post, at 452-453. We are in accord, then, that there is some point at which the district court is rendered powerless to enter a judgment of acquittal, and the disagreement between us and the dissent comes down to nothing more cosmic than the question of timing — which we find answered by the text of Rule 29.
In an effort to explain why, if a Rule 29(c) motion is in any event unnecessary, it makes any sense to impose a 7-day deadline upon the making of it, the dissent maintains that the untimeliness of a motion gives a district court discretion to ignore it. Post, at 445. This presents the disedifying prospect of a court vested with “the inherent authority to ensure that a legally innocent defendant is not wrongfully convicted,” post, at 442, exercising its discretion to let an innocent defendant be wrongfully convicted. Quite obviously, this explanation of the deadline is incompatible with the premise that underlies the dissent’s entire argument. As for the dissent’s concern, post, at 448, that our decision runs afoul of Rule 2’s mandate that the rules “be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay”: We see neither simplicity, nor fairness, nor elimination of delay in a regime that makes it discretionary whether an untimely motion for judgment of acquittal will be entertained.
The dissent asserts that “permissive rules do not withdraw pre-existing inherent powers.” Post, at 452. That assertion is really not relevant to the present case since, as we have discussed, the power to enter postverdict judgments of acquittal sua sponte was not a “pre-existing inherent power.” See supra, at 426-428, and n. 5. But besides the lack of factual predicate for its application here, the principle the dissent proposes would produce some extraordinary consequences. For example, as the cases cited by the dissent illustrate, see post, at 439-440, courts previously have ordered new trials sua sponte. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, however, provides that “[t]he court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial . . . .” Following the dissent’s logic, Rule 33, being permissive, does not preclude a court from granting a new trial without motion, thereby leaving open to the court a course of action that may well violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, But see Advisory Committee’s Notes on 1966 Amendment of Fed. Rule Crim. Proe. 33, 18 U. S. C. App., p. 801 (“The amendments to the first two sentences make it clear that a judge has no power to order a new trial on his own motion, that he can act only in response to a motion timely made by a defendant. Problems of double jeopardy arise when the court acts on its own motion”). Similarly, a pre-existing practice, if there was one, would allow a subpoena to be served by a party or a minor despite Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(d) (“A subpoena may be served by the marshal, by a deputy marshal or by any other person who is not a party and who is not less than 18 years of age”); would allow a judge from another district to take over a jury trial from a disabled judge despite Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(a) (“If . . . the judge before whom a jury trial has commenced is unable to proceed with the trial, any other judge regularly sitting in or assigned to the court. .. may proceed with and finish the trial”); and would allow a court to correct a technical error in a sentence more than seven days after the imposition of the sentence, despite Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c) (“The court, acting within 7 days after the imposition of sentence, may correct a sentence that was imposed as a result of arithmetical, technical, or other clear error”).
The decisions of Justice Harlan relied upon by the dissent to support the proposition that permissive rules do not eliminate inherent powers are not germane. We have discussed Link above, see supra, at 426. In United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U. S. 98, 104 (1957), Justice Harlan noted that this Court has proceeded on the assumption that we have inherent authority to “affect judgments by action which would otherwise be out of time under [our own] Rules.” That statement would be relevant if the present case involved a district court’s departure from one of its own rules — which of course it does not. In Fernandez v. United States, 81 S. Ct. 642 (1961), 5 L. Ed. 2d 683 (Harlan, J., in chambers), Justice Harlan recognized that the provision of former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(a) that a “person arrested for an offense not punishable by death shall be admitted to bail” (emphasis added) did not withdraw district courts’ authority to revoke bail in a noncapital case. Fernandez, supra, at 644, and n. 7, 5 L. Ed. 2d, at 685, and n. 7. What admitting to bail implies with respect to revocation of bail is not comparable to what granting judgment on motion implies with respect to granting judgment without motion. What the dissent needs, in the Fernandez context, is a case holding that a statute which permits bail for “persons arrested for noncapital offenses” does not preclude bail for persons arrested for capital offenses. Of course, such a case will not be found.
Finally, the dissent contends that United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267 (1970), supports existence of the “inherent power” petitioner invokes. See post, at 448-449. We think not. Sisson did not “implicitly conclude” that it was proper to enter a postverdict judgment of acquittal without motion, because the propriety of the judgment of acquittal was irrelevant to the decision. The only issue was whether the judgment appealed from was a judgment of acquittal (proper or improper), because that would mean that the Government’s appeal under the former 18 U. S. C. § 3731 (which did not apply to judgments of acquittal) must be dismissed. See United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332, 351 (1975) (appeal in Sisson “was barred solely by the statute”).
* * *
We conclude that the District Court had no authority to grant petitioner’s motion for judgment of acquittal filed one day outside the time limit prescribed by Rule 29(c). We therefore affirm the judgment of the Sixth Circuit.
It is so ordered.
“Rule 29. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
“(a) Motion Before Submission to Jury. Motions for directed verdict are abolished and motions for judgment of acquittal shall be used in their place. The court on motion of a defendant or of its own motion shall order the entry of judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment or information after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses. If a defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence offered by the government is not granted, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right.
“(b) Reservation of Decision on Motion. The court may reserve decision on a motion for judgment of acquittal, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict .of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.
“(c) Motion after Discharge of Jury. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict, a motion for judgment of acquittal may be made or renewed within 7 days after the jury is discharged or within such further time as the court may fix during the 7-day period. If a verdict of guilty is returned the court may on such motion set aside the verdict and enter judgment of acquittal. If no verdict is returned the court may enter judgment of acquittal. It shall not be necessary to the making of such a motion that a similar motion has been made prior to the submission of the case to the jury.
“(d) Same: Conditional Ruling on Grant of Motion. If a motion for judgment of acquittal after verdict of guilty under this Rule is granted, the court shall also determine whether any motion for a new trial should be granted if the judgment of acquittal is thereafter vacated or reversed, specifying the grounds for such determination. If the motion for a new trial is granted conditionally, the order thereon does not affect the finality of the judgment. If the motion for a new trial has been granted conditionally and the judgment is reversed on appeal, the new trial shall proceed unless the appellate court has otherwise ordered. If such motion has been denied conditionally, the appellee on appeal may assert error in that denial, and if the judgment is reversed on appeal, subsequent proceedings shall be in accordance with the order of the appellate court.”
The dissent forcefully argues that Smith does not compel the result we reach in this case. Post, at 452-453. That is an effective rejoinder to an argument we have not made. In response to the argument we have made — that some of the considerations supporting the holding in Smith apply here — the dissent (i) ignores the portion of Smith discussing the strangeness of a rule that would give a judge greater power to act sua sponte than on motion; and (ii) transforms Smith’s desire to spare trial judges “private appeals or application by counsel or friends of the person convicted” into a concern for the “appearance of impropriety” that “ex parte approaches” would create, post, at 453, which concern in the present context (though presumably for some reason not in the Smith context) the dissent regards as “a highly inappropriate comment on the integrity of the federal judiciary,” ibid., and the dissent says it was dictum in Smith anyway.
Perhaps even more inexplicable is what precisely would be achieved by the Government’s reading, which (unlike petitioner’s theories) would permit the court to act sua sponte only during the 7-day period specified by the Rule (or any extension thereof ordered by the court during the 7-day period, as Rule 29(c) allows). The sole beneficiary of the Government’s textual contortions is the district judge who wants to set aside a verdict, but lacks the wit to invite a motion for that during the 7-day period, or (if defendant’s counsel is unavailable) to extend the 7-day period, sua sponte, in order to invite such a motion later. It is our hope and belief that no such district judge exists.
Rule 37(a) was amended in 1966 to provide that a district court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal “[u]pon a showing of excusable neglect.” See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 37(a) (1966). When Rule 37(a) was abrogated and replaced by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), the substance of this amendment was transferred to Rule 4(b). See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(b) (1968).
The dissent’s extended discussion of pre-Rule federal eases produces a lot of smoke, and no fire. Ansley v. United States, 135 F. 2d 207, 208 (CA5 1948), described by the dissent as “establishing a district court’s inherent power to review sua sponte a jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence,” post, at 446, establishes no such thing. There, after noting the appellants’ failure to renew their motions for directed verdict at the close of evidence, the Fifth Circuit said:
“[T]he question of the sufficiency of the evidence was not properly saved for review by this court. It is true that the question may and should be raised by the court of its own motion, if necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice, but this is not such a case. We have examined the record, and have found it to contain ample evidence to support the judgment.” 135 F. 2d, at 208.
It is obvious that the statement “the question may and should be raised by the court of its own motion” refers to the power of an appellate court to review sufficiency of the evidence where the issue has not been preserved for appeal. The cases cited by the dissent deal with the power of a district court to enter a judgment of acquittal before the return of a verdict (i. e., to direct a verdict of acquittal), see Cady v. United States, 293 F. 829 (CADC 1923); Nosowitz v. United States, 282 F. 575, 578 (CA2 1922); United States v. Fullerton, 25 F. Cas. 1225 (No. 15,176) (SDNY 1870); the power of a district court to set aside a verdict and order a new trial, see Wiborg v. United States, 163 U. S. 632, 658-659 (1896); United States v. Harding, 26 F. Cas. 131, 136 (No. 15,301) (ED Pa. 1846); cf. Charles v. State, 4 Port. 107, 109-110 (Ala. 1836); the power of a district court to enter judgment of acquittal where the defendant has made a preverdict or postverdiet motion to acquit, see Ex parte United States, 101 F. 2d 870, 878 (CA7 1939), aff’d by an equally divided Court, United States v. Stone, 308 U. S. 519 (1939); United States v. Standard Oil Co., 23 F. Supp. 937, 938-939 (WD Wis. 1938); cf. State v. Meen, 171 Wis. 36, 38-39 (1920); and even the power of an appellate court to reverse a district court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict, see Nosowitz, supra, at 578; Cherry v. United States, 78 F. 2d 334 (CA7 1935); Reiner v. United States, 92 F. 2d 823, 824-825 (CA9 1937); France v. United States, 164 U. S. 676, 680 (1897); Romano v. United States, 9 F. 2d 522, 524 (CA2 1925). Not a single pre-Rule ease cited by the dissent purports to exercise the power at issue here: a district court’s power to enter judgment of acquittal for insufficient evidence, without motion, and after the return of a guilty verdict. The dissent apparently thinks it an adequate explanation for this lack of support that, prior to our decision in United States v. Smith, 331 U. S. 469, 474 (1947) (suggesting that sua sponte grant of a new trial may raise double jeopardy concerns), district courts could order new trials where there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury verdict. Post, at 442-443. But if these district courts truly had latent inherent power to enter a judgment of acquittal, surely at least some of them would have been willing to give a legally innocent defendant that to which he was entitled — viz., a judgment of acquittal — rather than just a new trial. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. 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. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations | What is the ideological direction of the decision reviewed by the Supreme Court? | [
"Conservative",
"Liberal",
"Unspecifiable"
] | [
0
] | sc |
OXFORD HEALTH PLANS LLC, Petitioner
v.
John Ivan SUTTER.
No. 12-135.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 25, 2013.
Decided June 10, 2013.
Seth P. Waxman, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Eric D. Katz, for Respondent.
Matthew M. Shors, Brian W. Kemper, United Health Group Incorporated, Minnetonka, MN, P. Christine Deruelle, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Miami, FL, Adam N. Saravay, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ, Seth P. Waxman, Counsel of Record, Edward C. DuMont, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Joshua M. Salzman, Daniel T. Deacon, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Eric Schnapper, Seattle, WA, Eric D. Katz, Counsel of Record, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC, Roseland, NJ, for Respondent.
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Class arbitration is a matter of consent: An arbitrator may employ class procedures only if the parties have authorized them. See Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 684, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010). In this case, an arbitrator found that the parties' contract provided for class arbitration. The question presented is whether in doing so he "exceeded [his] powers" under § 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. We conclude that the arbitrator's decision survives the limited judicial review § 10(a)(4) allows. I
Respondent John Sutter, a pediatrician, entered into a contract with petitioner Oxford Health Plans, a health insurance company. Sutter agreed to provide medical care to members of Oxford's network, and Oxford agreed to pay for those services at prescribed rates. Several years later, Sutter filed suit against Oxford in New Jersey Superior Court on behalf of himself and a proposed class of other New Jersey physicians under contract with Oxford. The complaint alleged that Oxford had failed to make full and prompt payment to the doctors, in violation of their agreements and various state laws.
Oxford moved to compel arbitration of Sutter's claims, relying on the following clause in their contract:
"No civil action concerning any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be instituted before any court, and all such disputes shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration in New Jersey, pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association with one arbitrator." App. 15-16.
The state court granted Oxford's motion, thus referring the suit to arbitration.
The parties agreed that the arbitrator should decide whether their contract authorized class arbitration, and he determined that it did. Noting that the question turned on "construction of the parties' agreement," the arbitrator focused on the text of the arbitration clause quoted above. Id., at 30. He reasoned that the clause sent to arbitration "the same universal class of disputes" that it barred the parties from bringing "as civil actions" in court: The "intent of the clause" was "to vest in the arbitration process everything that is prohibited from the court process." Id., at 31. And a class action, the arbitrator continued, "is plainly one of the possible forms of civil action that could be brought in a court" absent the agreement. Ibid. Accordingly, he concluded that "on its face, the arbitration clause ... expresses the parties' intent that class arbitration can be maintained." Id., at 32.
Oxford filed a motion in federal court to vacate the arbitrator's decision on the ground that he had "exceeded [his] powers" under § 10(a)(4) of the FAA. The District Court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. See 05-CV-2198, 2005 WL 6795061 (D.N.J., Oct. 31, 2005), aff'd, 227 Fed.Appx. 135 (2007).
While the arbitration proceeded, this Court held in Stolt-Nielsen that "a party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so." 559 U.S., at 684, 130 S.Ct. 1758. The parties in Stolt-Nielsen had stipulated that they had never reached an agreement on class arbitration. Relying on § 10(a)(4), we vacated the arbitrators' decision approving class proceedings because, in the absence of such an agreement, the arbitrators had "simply ... imposed [their] own view of sound policy." Id., at 672, 130 S.Ct. 1758.
Oxford immediately asked the arbitrator to reconsider his decision on class arbitration in light of Stolt-Nielsen . The arbitrator issued a new opinion holding that Stolt-Nielsen had no effect on the case because this agreement authorized class arbitration. Unlike in Stolt-Nielsen, the arbitrator explained, the parties here disputed the meaning of their contract; he had therefore been required "to construe the arbitration clause in the ordinary way to glean the parties' intent." App. 72. And in performing that task, the arbitrator continued, he had "found that the arbitration clause unambiguously evinced an intention to allow class arbitration." Id., at 70. The arbitrator concluded by reconfirming his reasons for so construing the clause.
Oxford then returned to federal court, renewing its effort to vacate the arbitrator's decision under § 10(a)(4). Once again, the District Court denied the motion, and the Third Circuit affirmed. The Court of Appeals first underscored the limited scope of judicial review that § 10(a)(4) allows: So long as an arbitrator "makes a good faith attempt" to interpret a contract, "even serious errors of law or fact will not subject his award to vacatur." 675 F.3d 215, 220 (2012). Oxford could not prevail under that standard, the court held, because the arbitrator had "endeavored to give effect to the parties' intent" and "articulate[d] a contractual basis for his decision." Id., at 223-224. Oxford's objections to the ruling were "simply dressed-up arguments that the arbitrator interpreted its agreement erroneously." Id., at 224.
We granted certiorari, 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 786, 184 L.Ed.2d 526 (2012), to address a circuit split on whether § 10(a)(4) allows a court to vacate an arbitral award in similar circumstances. Holding that it does not, we affirm the Court of Appeals.
II
Under the FAA, courts may vacate an arbitrator's decision "only in very unusual circumstances." First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). That limited judicial review, we have explained, "maintain[s] arbitration's essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway." Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 588, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008). If parties could take "full-bore legal and evidentiary appeals," arbitration would become "merely a prelude to a more cumbersome and time-consuming judicial review process." Ibid.
Here, Oxford invokes § 10(a)(4) of the Act, which authorizes a federal court to set aside an arbitral award "where the arbitrator[ ] exceeded [his] powers." A party seeking relief under that provision bears a heavy burden. "It is not enough ... to show that the [arbitrator] committed an error-or even a serious error." Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S., at 671, 130 S.Ct. 1758. Because the parties "bargained for the arbitrator's construction of their agreement," an arbitral decision "even arguably construing or applying the contract" must stand, regardless of a court's view of its (de)merits. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57, 62, 121 S.Ct. 462, 148 L.Ed.2d 354 (2000) (quoting Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960) ; Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987) ; internal quotation marks omitted). Only if "the arbitrator act[s] outside the scope of his contractually delegated authority"-issuing an award that "simply reflect[s] [his] own notions of [economic] justice" rather than "draw[ing] its essence from the contract"-may a court overturn his determination. Eastern Associated Coal, 531 U.S., at 62, 121 S.Ct. 462 (quoting Misco, 484 U.S., at 38, 108 S.Ct. 364). So the sole question for us is whether the arbitrator (even arguably) interpreted the parties' contract, not whether he got its meaning right or wrong.
And we have already all but answered that question just by summarizing the arbitrator's decisions, see supra, at 2071 - 2072; they are, through and through, interpretations of the parties' agreement. The arbitrator's first ruling recited the "question of construction" the parties had submitted to him: "whether [their] Agreement allows for class action arbitration." App. 29-30. To resolve that matter, the arbitrator focused on the arbitration clause's text, analyzing (whether correctly or not makes no difference) the scope of both what it barred from court and what it sent to arbitration. The arbitrator concluded, based on that textual exegesis, that the clause "on its face ... expresses the parties' intent that class action arbitration can be maintained." Id., at 32. When Oxford requested reconsideration in light of Stolt-Nielsen, the arbitrator explained that his prior decision was "concerned solely with the parties' intent as evidenced by the words of the arbitration clause itself." App. 69. He then ran through his textual analysis again, and reiterated his conclusion: "[T]he text of the clause itself authorizes" class arbitration. Id., at 73. Twice, then, the arbitrator did what the parties had asked: He considered their contract and decided whether it reflected an agreement to permit class proceedings. That suffices to show that the arbitrator did not " exceed[ ] [his] powers." § 10(a)(4).
Oxford's contrary view relies principally on Stolt-Nielsen . As noted earlier, we found there that an arbitration panel exceeded its powers under § 10(a)(4) when it ordered a party to submit to class arbitration. See supra, at 2072. Oxford takes that decision to mean that "even the 'high hurdle' of Section 10(a)(4) review is overcome when an arbitrator imposes class arbitration without a sufficient contractual basis." Reply Brief 5 (quoting Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S., at 671, 130 S.Ct. 1758). Under Stolt-Nielsen , Oxford asserts, a court may thus vacate " as ultra vires " an arbitral decision like this one for misconstruing a contract to approve class proceedings. Reply Brief 7.
But Oxford misreads Stolt-Nielsen : We overturned the arbitral decision there because it lacked any contractual basis for ordering class procedures, not because it lacked, in Oxford's terminology, a "sufficient" one. The parties in Stolt-Nielsen had entered into an unusual stipulation that they had never reached an agreement on class arbitration. See 559 U.S., at 668-669, 673, 130 S.Ct. 1758. In that circumstance, we noted, the panel's decision was not-indeed, could not have been-"based on a determination regarding the parties' intent." Id., at 673, n. 4, 130 S.Ct. 1758;
see id., at 676, 130 S.Ct. 1758 ("Th[e] stipulation left no room for an inquiry regarding the parties' intent"). Nor, we continued, did the panel attempt to ascertain whether federal or state law established a "default rule" to take effect absent an agreement. Id., at 673, 130 S.Ct. 1758. Instead, "the panel simply imposed its own conception of sound policy" when it ordered class proceedings. Id., at 675, 130 S.Ct. 1758. But "the task of an arbitrator," we stated, "is to interpret and enforce a contract, not to make public policy." Id., at 672, 130 S.Ct. 1758. In "impos[ing] its own policy choice," the panel "thus exceeded its powers." Id., at 677, 130 S.Ct. 1758.
The contrast with this case is stark. In Stolt-Nielsen, the arbitrators did not construe the parties' contract, and did not identify any agreement authorizing class proceedings. So in setting aside the arbitrators' decision, we found not that they had misinterpreted the contract, but that they had abandoned their interpretive role. Here, the arbitrator did construe the contract (focusing, per usual, on its language), and did find an agreement to permit class arbitration. So to overturn his decision, we would have to rely on a finding that he misapprehended the parties' intent. But § 10(a)(4)
bars that course: It permits courts to vacate an arbitral decision only when the arbitrator strayed from his delegated task of interpreting a contract, not when he performed that task poorly. Stolt-Nielsen and this case thus fall on opposite sides of the line that § 10(a)(4) draws to delimit judicial review of arbitral decisions.
The remainder of Oxford's argument addresses merely the merits: The arbitrator, Oxford contends at length, badly misunderstood the contract's arbitration clause. See Brief for Petitioner 21-28. The key text, again, goes as follows: "No civil action concerning any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be instituted before any court, and all such disputes shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration." App. 15-16. The arbitrator thought that clause sent to arbitration all "civil action[s]" barred from court, and viewed class actions as falling within that category. See supra, at 2071 - 2072. But Oxford points out that the provision submits to arbitration not any "civil action[s]," but instead any "dispute arising under" the agreement. And in any event, Oxford claims, a class action is not a form of "civil action," as the arbitrator thought, but merely a procedural device that may be available in a court. At bottom, Oxford maintains, this is a garden-variety arbitration clause, lacking any of the terms or features that would indicate an agreement to use class procedures.
We reject this argument because, and only because, it is not properly addressed to a court. Nothing we say in this opinion should be taken to reflect any agreement with the arbitrator's contract interpretation, or any quarrel with Oxford's contrary reading. All we say is that convincing a court of an arbitrator's error-even his grave error-is not enough. So long as the arbitrator was "arguably construing" the contract-which this one was-a court may not correct his mistakes under § 10(a)(4). Eastern Associated Coal, 531 U.S., at 62, 121 S.Ct. 462 (internal quotation marks omitted). The potential for those mistakes is the price of agreeing to arbitration. As we have held before, we hold again: "It is the arbitrator's construction [of the contract] which was bargained for; and so far as the arbitrator's decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts have no business overruling him because their interpretation of the contract is different from his." Enterprise Wheel, 363 U.S. at 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358. The arbitrator's construction holds, however good, bad, or ugly.
In sum, Oxford chose arbitration, and it must now live with that choice. Oxford agreed with Sutter that an arbitrator should determine what their contract meant, including whether its terms approved class arbitration. The arbitrator did what the parties requested: He provided an interpretation of the contract resolving that disputed issue. His interpretation went against Oxford, maybe mistakenly so. But still, Oxford does not get to rerun the matter in a court. Under § 10(a)(4), the question for a judge is not whether the arbitrator construed the parties' contract correctly, but whether he construed it at all. Because he did, and therefore did not "exceed his powers," we cannot give Oxford the relief it wants. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMAS joins, concurring.
As the Court explains, "[c]lass arbitration is a matter of consent," ante, at 2066, and petitioner consented to the arbitrator's authority by conceding that he should decide in the first instance whether the contract authorizes class arbitration. The Court accordingly refuses to set aside the arbitrator's ruling because he was " 'arguably construing ... the contract' " when he allowed respondent to proceed on a classwide basis. Ante, at 2070 (quoting Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57, 62, 121 S.Ct. 462, 148 L.Ed.2d 354 (2000) ). Today's result follows directly from petitioner's concession and the narrow judicial review that federal law allows in arbitration cases. See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a).
But unlike petitioner, absent members of the plaintiff class never conceded that the contract authorizes the arbitrator to decide whether to conduct class arbitration. It doesn't. If we were reviewing the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract de novo, we would have little trouble concluding that he improperly inferred "[a]n implicit agreement to authorize class-action arbitration ... from the fact of the parties' agreement to arbitrate." Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 685, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010).
With no reason to think that the absent class members ever agreed to class arbitration, it is far from clear that they will be bound by the arbitrator's ultimate resolution of this dispute. Arbitration "is a matter of consent, not coercion," Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 479, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989), and the absent members of the plaintiff class have not submitted themselves to this arbitrator's authority in any way. It is true that they signed contracts with arbitration clauses materially identical to those signed by the plaintiff who brought this suit. But an arbitrator's erroneous interpretation of contracts that do not authorize class arbitration cannot bind someone who has not authorized the arbitrator to make that determination. As the Court explains, "[a]n arbitrator may employ class procedures only if the parties have authorized them." Ante, at 2066.
The distribution of opt-out notices does not cure this fundamental flaw in the class arbitration proceeding in this case. "[A]rbitration is simply a matter of contract between the parties," First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995), and an offeree's silence does not normally modify the terms of a contract, 1 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 69(1) (1979). Accordingly, at least where absent class members have not been required to opt in, it is difficult to see how an arbitrator's decision to conduct class proceedings could bind absent class members who have not authorized the arbitrator to decide on a classwide basis which arbitration procedures are to be used.
Class arbitrations that are vulnerable to collateral attack allow absent class members to unfairly claim the "benefit from a favorable judgment without subjecting themselves to the binding effect of an unfavorable one," American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 546-547, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974). In the absence of concessions like Oxford's, this possibility should give courts pause before concluding that the availability of class arbitration is a question the arbitrator should decide. But because that argument was not available to petitioner in light of its concession below, I join the opinion of the Court.
Compare 675 F.3d 215 (C.A.3 2012) (case below) (vacatur not proper), and Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 646 F.3d 113 (C.A.2 2011) (same), with Reed v. Florida Metropolitan Univ., Inc., 681 F.3d 630 (C.A.5 2012) (vacatur proper).
We would face a different issue if Oxford had argued below that the availability of class arbitration is a so-called "question of arbitrability." Those questions-which "include certain gateway matters, such as whether parties have a valid arbitration agreement at all or whether a concededly binding arbitration clause applies to a certain type of controversy"-are presumptively for courts to decide. Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 452, 123 S.Ct. 2402, 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003) (plurality opinion). A court may therefore review an arbitrator's determination of such a matter de novo absent "clear[ ] and unmistakabl[e]" evidence that the parties wanted an arbitrator to resolve the dispute. AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 649, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986). Stolt-Nielsen made clear that this Court has not yet decided whether the availability of class arbitration is a question of arbitrability. See 559 U.S., at 680, 130 S.Ct. 1758. But this case gives us no opportunity to do so because Oxford agreed that the arbitrator should determine whether its contract with Sutter authorized class procedures. See Brief for Petitioner 38, n. 9 (conceding this point). Indeed, Oxford submitted that issue to the arbitrator not once, but twice-and the second time after Stolt-Nielsen flagged that it might be a question of arbitrability. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. If the case arose under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, note the source as "United States Supreme Court". If the case arose in a state court, note the source as "State Supreme Court", "State Appellate Court", or "State Trial Court". Do not code the name of the state. | What is the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims"
] | [
21
] | sc |
Sila LUIS, Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 14-419.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Nov. 10, 2015.
Decided March 30, 2016.
Howard Srebnick, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
Michael R. Dreeben, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Elaine J. Goldenberg, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Sonja M. Ralston, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Scott A. Srebnick, Scott A. Srebnick, P.A., Miami, FL, Ricardo J. Bascuas, Coral Gables, FL, Howard Srebnick, Joshua Shore, Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A., Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
Scott A. Srebnick, Scott A. Srebnick, P.A., Miami, FL, Howard Srebnick, Joshua Shore, Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A., Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
Justice BREYER announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice GINSBURG, and Justice SOTOMAYOR join.
A federal statute provides that a court may freeze before trial certain assets belonging to a criminal defendant accused of violations of federal health care or banking laws. See 18 U.S.C. § 1345. Those assets include: (1) property "obtained as a result of" the crime, (2) property "traceable" to the crime, and (3) other "property of equivalent value." § 1345(a)(2). In this case, the Government has obtained a court order that freezes assets belonging to the third category of property, namely, property that is untainted by the crime, and that belongs fully to the defendant. That order, the defendant says, prevents her from paying her lawyer. She claims that insofar as it does so, it violates her Sixth Amendment "right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for [her] defence." We agree.
I
In October 2012, a federal grand jury charged the petitioner, Sila Luis, with paying kickbacks, conspiring to commit fraud, and engaging in other crimes all related to health care. See § 1349; § 371; 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(2)(A). The Government claimed that Luis had fraudulently obtained close to $45 million, almost all of which she had already spent. Believing it would convict Luis of the crimes charged, and hoping to preserve the $2 million remaining in Luis' possession for payment of restitution and other criminal penalties (often referred to as criminal forfeitures, which can include innocent-not just tainted-assets, a point of critical importance here), the Government sought a pretrial order prohibiting Luis from dissipating her assets. See 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2). And the District Court ultimately issued an order prohibiting her from "dissipating, or otherwise disposing of ... assets, real or personal ... up to the equivalent value of the proceeds of the Federal health care fraud ($45 million)." App. to Pet. for Cert. A-6.
The Government and Luis agree that this court order will prevent Luis from using her own untainted funds, i.e., funds not connected with the crime, to hire counsel to defend her in her criminal case. See App. 161 (stipulating "that an unquantified amount of revenue not connected to the indictment [had] flowed into some of the accounts" subject to the restraining order); ibid. (similarly stipulating that Luis used "revenue not connected to the indictment" to pay for real property that she possessed). Although the District Court recognized that the order might prevent Luis from obtaining counsel of her choice, it held "that there is no Sixth Amendment right to use untainted, substitute assets to hire counsel." 966 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1334 (S.D.Fla.2013).
The Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court. See 564 Fed.Appx. 493, 494 (2014) (per curiam ) (referring to, e.g., Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1090, 188 L.Ed.2d 46 (2014) ; Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 631, 109 S.Ct. 2646, 105 L.Ed.2d 528 (1989) ; United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 616, 109 S.Ct. 2657, 105 L.Ed.2d 512 (1989) ). We granted Luis' petition for certiorari.
II
The question presented is "[w]hether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant's legitimate, untainted assets (those not traceable to a criminal offense) needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments." Pet. for Cert. ii. We see no reasonable way to interpret the relevant statutes to avoid answering this constitutional question. Cf. Monsanto, supra, at 614, 109 S.Ct. 2657. Hence, we answer it, and our answer is that the pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment. The nature and importance of the constitutional right taken together with the nature of the assets lead us to this conclusion.
A
No one doubts the fundamental character of a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the "Assistance of Counsel." In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), the Court explained:
" 'The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.' " Id ., at 344-345, 83 S.Ct. 792 (quoting Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68-69, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932) ).
It is consequently not surprising: first, that this Court's opinions often refer to the right to counsel as "fundamental," id ., at 68, 53 S.Ct. 55 ; see Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 243-244, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660 (1936) (similar); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 462-463, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) (similar); second, that commentators describe the right as a "great engin[e] by which an innocent man can make the truth of his innocence visible," Amar, Sixth Amendment First Principles, 84 Geo. L.J. 641, 643 (1996) ; see Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 862, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975) ; third, that we have understood the right to require that the Government provide counsel for an indigent defendant accused of all but the least serious crimes, see Gideon, supra, at 344, 83 S.Ct. 792 ; and fourth, that we have considered the wrongful deprivation of the right to counsel a "structural" error that so "affec[ts] the framework within which the trial proceeds" that courts may not even ask whether the error harmed the defendant. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see id., at 150, 126 S.Ct. 2557.
Given the necessarily close working relationship between lawyer and client, the need for confidence, and the critical importance of trust, neither is it surprising that the Court has held that the Sixth Amendment grants a defendant "a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice." Powell, supra, at 53, 53 S.Ct. 55 ; see Gonzalez-Lopez, supra, at 150, 126 S.Ct. 2557 (describing "these myriad aspects of representation"). This "fair opportunity" for the defendant to secure counsel of choice has limits. A defendant has no right, for example, to an attorney who is not a member of the bar, or who has a conflict of interest due to a relationship with an opposing party. See Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988). And an indigent defendant, while entitled to adequate representation, has no right to have the Government pay for his preferred representational choice. See Caplin & Drysdale, 491 U.S., at 624, 109 S.Ct. 2646.
We nonetheless emphasize that the constitutional right at issue here is fundamental: "[T]he Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom that defendant can afford to hire." Ibid .
B
The Government cannot, and does not, deny Luis' right to be represented by a qualified attorney whom she chooses and can afford. But the Government would undermine the value of that right by taking from Luis the ability to use the funds she needs to pay for her chosen attorney. The Government points out that, while freezing the funds may have this consequence, there are important interests on the other side of the legal equation: It wishes to guarantee that those funds will be available later to help pay for statutory penalties (including forfeiture of untainted assets) and restitution, should it secure convictions. And it points to two cases from this Court, Caplin & Drysdale, supra, at 619, 109 S.Ct. 2646 and Monsanto, 491 U.S., at 615, 109 S.Ct. 2657 which, in the Government's view, hold that the Sixth Amendment does not pose an obstacle to its doing so here. In our view, however, the nature of the assets at issue here differs from the assets at issue in those earlier cases. And that distinction makes a difference.
1
The relevant difference consists of the fact that the property here is untainted; i.e., it belongs to the defendant, pure and simple. In this respect it differs from a robber's loot, a drug seller's cocaine, a burglar's tools, or other property associated with the planning, implementing, or concealing of a crime. The Government may well be able to freeze, perhaps to seize, assets of the latter, "tainted" kind before trial. As a matter of property law the defendant's ownership interest is imperfect. The robber's loot belongs to the victim, not to the defendant. See Telegraph Co. v. Davenport, 97 U.S. 369, 372, 24 L.Ed. 1047 (1878) ("The great principle that no one can be deprived of his property without his assent, except by the processes of the law, requires ... that the property wrongfully transferred or stolen should be restored to its rightful owner"). The cocaine is contraband, long considered forfeitable to the Government wherever found. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 881(a) ("[Controlled substances] shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them"); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 159, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925) (describing the seizure of "contraband forfeitable property"). And title to property used to commit a crime (or otherwise "traceable" to a crime) often passes to the Government at the instant the crime is planned or committed. See, e.g., § 853(c) (providing that the Government's ownership interest in such property relates back to the time of the crime).
The property at issue here, however, is not loot, contraband, or otherwise "tainted." It belongs to the defendant. That fact undermines the Government's reliance upon precedent, for both Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto relied critically upon the fact that the property at issue was "tainted," and that title to the property therefore had passed from the defendant to the Government before the court issued its order freezing (or otherwise disposing of) the assets.
In Caplin & Drysdale, the Court considered a post-conviction forfeiture that took from a convicted defendant funds he would have used to pay his lawyer. The Court held that the forfeiture was constitutional. In doing so, however, it emphasized that the forfeiture statute at issue provided that " '[a]ll right, title, and interest in property [constituting or derived from any proceeds obtained from the crime] vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to [the] forfeiture.' " 491 U.S., at 625, n. 4, 109 S.Ct. 2646 (quoting § 853(c) ) (emphasis added). It added that the law had "long-recognized" as "lawful" the "practice of vesting title to any forfeitable asset[s] in the United State[s] at the time of the crim[e]." Id., at 627, 109 S.Ct. 2646. It pointed out that the defendant did not "claim, as a general proposition, that the [vesting] provision is unconstitutional, or that Congress cannot, as a general matter, vest title to assets derived from the crime in the Government, as of the date of the criminal act in question." Id., at 627-628, 109 S.Ct. 2646. And, given the vesting language, the Court explained that the defendant "did not hold good title" to the property. Id., at 627, 109 S.Ct. 2646. The Court therefore concluded that "[t]here is no constitutional principle that gives one person [namely, the defendant] the right to give another's [namely, the Government's] property to a third party," namely, the lawyer. Id., at 628, 109 S.Ct. 2646.
In Monsanto, the Court considered a pretrial restraining order that prevented a not-yet-convicted defendant from using certain assets to pay for his lawyer. The defendant argued that, given this difference, Caplin & Drysdale 's conclusion should not apply. The Court noted, however, that the property at issue was forfeitable under the same statute that was at issue in Caplin & Drysdale . See Monsanto, supra, at 614, 109 S.Ct. 2657. And, as in Caplin & Drysdale, the application of that statute to Monsanto's case concerned only the pretrial restraint of assets that were traceable to the crime, see 491 U.S., at 602-603, 109 S.Ct. 2657 ; thus, the statute passed title to those funds at the time the crime was committed (i.e., before the trial), see § 853(c). The Court said that Caplin & Drysdale had already "weigh[ed] ... th[e] very interests" at issue. Monsanto, supra, at 616, 109 S.Ct. 2657. And it "rel[ied] on" its "conclusion" in Caplin & Drysdale to dispose of, and to reject, the defendant's "similar constitutional claims." 491 U.S., at 614, 109 S.Ct. 2657.
Justice KENNEDY prefers to read Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto broadly, as holding that "the Government, having established probable cause to believe that Luis' substitute [i.e., innocent] assets will be forfeitable upon conviction, should be permitted to obtain a restraining order barring her from spending those funds prior to trial." Post, at 1106 (dissenting opinion). In other words, he believes that those cases stand for the proposition that property-whether tainted or untainted-is subject to pretrial restraint, so long as the property might someday be subject to forfeiture. But this reading asks too much of our precedents. For one thing, as discussed, Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto involved the restraint only of tainted assets, and thus we had no occasion to opine in those cases about the constitutionality of pretrial restraints of other, untainted assets.
For another thing, Justice KENNEDY's broad rule ignores the statutory background against which Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto were decided. The Court in those cases referenced § 853(c) more than a dozen times. And it acknowledged that whether property is "forfeitable" or subject to pretrial restraint under Congress' scheme is a nuanced inquiry that very much depends on who has the superior interest in the property at issue. See Caplin & Drysdale, supra, at 626-628, 109 S.Ct. 2646 ; Monsanto, 491 U.S., at 616, 109 S.Ct. 2657. We see this in, for example, § 853(e)(1), which explicitly authorizes restraining orders or injunctions against "property described in subsection (a) of this section" (i.e., tainted assets). We see this too in § 853(e)(1)(B), which requires the Government-in certain circumstances-to give "notice to persons appearing to have an interest in the property and opportunity for hearing" before obtaining a restraining order against such property. We see this in § 853(c), which allows "bona fide purchaser[s] for value" to keep property that would otherwise be subject to forfeiture. And we see this in § 853(n)(6)(A), which exempts certain property from forfeiture when a third party can show a vested interest in the property that is "superior" to that of the Government.
The distinction that we have discussed is thus an important one, not a technicality. It is the difference between what is yours and what is mine. In Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto, the Government wanted to impose restrictions upon (or seize) property that the Government had probable cause to believe was the proceeds of, or traceable to, a crime. See Monsanto, supra, at 615, 109 S.Ct. 2657. The relevant statute said that the Government took title to those tainted assets as of the time of the crime. See § 853(c). And the defendants in those cases consequently had to concede that the disputed property was in an important sense the Government's at the time the court imposed the restrictions. See Caplin & Drysdale, supra, at 619-620, 109 S.Ct. 2646 ; Monsanto, supra, at 602-603, 109 S.Ct. 2657.
This is not to say that the Government "owned" the tainted property outright (in the sense that it could take possession of the property even before obtaining a conviction). See post, at 1106 - 1108 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting). Rather, it is to say that the Government even before trial had a "substantial" interest in the tainted property sufficient to justify the property's pretrial restraint. See Caplin & Drysdale, supra, at 627, 109 S.Ct. 2646 ("[T]he property rights given the Government by virtue of [§ 853(c)'s relation-back provision] are more substantial than petitioner acknowledges"); United States v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 1, 19, 10 S.Ct. 244, 33 L.Ed. 555 (1890) ("As soon as [the possessor of the forfeitable asset committed the violation] ..., the forfeiture ... took effect, and (though needing judicial condemnation to perfect it) operated from that time as a statutory conveyance to the United States of all right, title and interest then remaining in the [possessor]; and was as valid and effectual, against all the world, as a recorded deed" (emphasis added)).
If we analogize to bankruptcy law, the Government, by application of § 853(c)'s relation-back provision, became something like a secured creditor with a lien on the defendant's tainted assets superior to that of most any other party. See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 506.03[1] (16th ed. 2015). For this reason, § 853(c) has operated in our cases as a significant limitation on criminal defendants' property rights in such assets-even before conviction. See Monsanto, supra, at 613, 109 S.Ct. 2657 ("Permitting a defendant to use [tainted] assets for his private purposes that, under this [relation-back] provision, will become the property of the United States if a conviction occurs cannot be sanctioned"); cf. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 326, 119 S.Ct. 1961, 144 L.Ed.2d 319 (1999) (noting that the Court had previously authorized injunctions against the further dissipation of property where, among other things, "the creditor (the Government) asserted an equitable lien on the property").
Here, by contrast, the Government seeks to impose restrictions upon Luis' un tainted property without any showing of any equivalent governmental interest in that property. Again, if this were a bankruptcy case, the Government would be at most an unsecured creditor. Although such creditors someday might collect from a debtor's general assets, they cannot be said to have any present claim to, or interest in, the debtor's property. See id., at 330, 119 S.Ct. 1961 ("[B]efore judgment ... an unsecured creditor has no rights at law or in equity in the property of his debtor"); see also 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 541.05[1] [b] ("[G]eneral unsecured creditor[s]" have "no specific property interest in the goods held or sold by the debtor"). The competing property interests in the tainted- and untainted-asset contexts therefore are not "exactly the same." Post, at 1112 - 1113 (KAGAN, J., dissenting). At least regarding her untainted assets, Luis can at this point reasonably claim that the property is still "mine," free and clear.
2
This distinction between (1) what is primarily "mine" (the defendant's) and (2) what is primarily "yours" (the Government's) does not by itself answer the constitutional question posed, for the law of property sometimes allows a person without a present interest in a piece of property to impose restrictions upon a current owner, say, to prevent waste. A holder of a reversionary interest, for example, can prevent the owner of a life estate from wasting the property. See, e.g., Peterson v. Ferrell, 127 N.C. 169, 170, 37 S.E. 189, 190 (1900). Those who later may become beneficiaries of a trust are sometimes able to prevent the trustee from dissipating the trust's assets. See, e.g., Kollock v. Webb, 113 Ga. 762, 769, 39 S.E. 339, 343 (1901). And holders of a contingent, future executory interest in property (an interest that might become possessory at some point down the road) can, in limited circumstances, enjoin the activities of the current owner. See, e.g., Dees v. Cheuvronts, 240 Ill. 486, 491, 88 N.E. 1011, 1012 (1909) ("[E]quity w[ill] interfere ... only when it is made to appear that the contingency ... is reasonably certain to happen, and the waste is ... wanton and conscienceless"). The Government here seeks a somewhat analogous order, i.e., an order that will preserve Luis' untainted assets so that they will be available to cover the costs of forfeiture and restitution if she is convicted, and if the court later determines that her tainted assets are insufficient or otherwise unavailable.
The Government finds statutory authority for its request in language authorizing a court to enjoin a criminal defendant from, for example, disposing of innocent "property of equivalent value" to that of tainted property. 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2)(B)(i). But Luis needs some portion of those same funds to pay for the lawyer of her choice. Thus, the legal conflict arises. And, in our view, insofar as innocent (i.e., untainted) funds are needed to obtain counsel of choice, we believe that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the court order that the Government seeks.
Three basic considerations lead us to this conclusion. First, the nature of the competing interests argues against this kind of court order. On the one side we find, as we have previously explained, supra, at 1088 - 1090, a Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel that is a fundamental constituent of due process of law, see Powell, 287 U.S., at 68-69, 53 S.Ct. 55. And that right includes "the right to be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom that defendant can afford to hire." Caplin & Drysdale, 491 U.S., at 624, 109 S.Ct. 2646. The order at issue in this case would seriously undermine that constitutional right.
On the other side we find interests that include the Government's contingent interest in securing its punishment of choice (namely, criminal forfeiture) as well as the victims' interest in securing restitution (notably, from funds belonging to the defendant, not the victims). While these interests are important, to deny the Government the order it requests will not inevitably undermine them, for, at least sometimes, the defendant may possess other assets-say, "tainted" property-that might be used for forfeitures and restitution. Cf. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S., at 148, 126 S.Ct. 2557 ("Deprivation of the right" to counsel of the defendant's choice "is 'complete' when the defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by the lawyer he wants"). Nor do the interests in obtaining payment of a criminal forfeiture or restitution order enjoy constitutional protection. Rather, despite their importance, compared to the right to counsel of choice, these interests would seem to lie somewhat further from the heart of a fair, effective criminal justice system.
Second, relevant legal tradition offers virtually no significant support for the Government's position. Rather, tradition argues to the contrary. Describing the 18th-century English legal world (which recognized only a limited right to counsel), Blackstone wrote that "only" those "goods and chattels" that "a man has at the time of conviction shall be forfeited." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 388 (1765) (emphasis added); see 1 J. Chitty, Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law 737 (1816) ("[T]he party indicted may sell any of [his property] ... to assist him in preparing for his defense on the trial").
Describing the common law as understood in 19th-century America (which recognized a broader right to counsel), Justice Story wrote:
"It is well known, that at the common law, in many cases of felonies, the party forfeited his goods and chattels to the crown. The forfeiture ... was a part, or at least a consequence, of the judgment of conviction. It is plain from this statement, that no right to the goods and chattels of the felon could be acquired by the crown by the mere commission of the offense; but the right attached only by the conviction of the offender.... In the contemplation of the common law, the offender's right was not divested until the conviction." The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1, 14, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827).
See generally Powell, supra, at 60-61, 53 S.Ct. 55 (describing the scope of the right to counsel in 18th-century Britain and colonial America).
As we have explained, supra, at 1090 - 1092, cases such as Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto permit the Government to freeze a defendant's assets pretrial, but the opinions in those cases highlight the fact that the property at issue was "tainted," i.e., it did not belong entirely to the defendant. We have found no decision of this Court authorizing unfettered, pretrial forfeiture of the defendant's own "innocent" property-property with no connection to the charged crime. Nor do we see any grounds for distinguishing the historic preference against preconviction forfeitures from the preconviction restraint at issue here. As far as Luis' Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice is concerned, a restraining order might as well be a forfeiture; that is, the restraint itself suffices to completely deny this constitutional right. See Gonzalez-Lopez, supra, at 148, 126 S.Ct. 2557.
Third, as a practical matter, to accept the Government's position could well erode the right to counsel to a considerably greater extent than we have so far indicated. To permit the Government to freeze Luis' untainted assets would unleash a principle of constitutional law that would have no obvious stopping place. The statutory provision before us authorizing the present restraining order refers only to "banking law violation[s]" and "Federal health care offense[s]." 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2). But, in the Government's view, Congress could write more statutes authorizing pretrial restraints in cases involving other illegal behavior-after all, a broad range of such behavior can lead to postconviction forfeiture of untainted assets. See, e.g., § 1963(m) (providing for forfeiture of innocent, substitute assets for any violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).
Moreover, the financial consequences of a criminal conviction are steep. Even beyond the forfeiture itself, criminal fines can be high, and restitution orders expensive. See, e.g., § 1344 ($1 million fine for bank fraud); § 3571 (mail and wire fraud fines of up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations); United States v. Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184, 187, 203 (C.A.2 2013) ($17.5 million restitution award against an individual defendant in a fraud-on-the-market case); FTC v. Trudeau, 662 F.3d 947, 949 (C.A.7 2011) ($37.6 million remedial sanction for fraud). How are defendants whose innocent assets are frozen in cases like these supposed to pay for a lawyer-particularly if they lack "tainted assets" because they are innocent, a class of defendants whom the right to counsel certainly seeks to protect? See Powell, 287 U.S., at 69, 53 S.Ct. 55 ; Amar, 84 Geo. L. J., at 643 ("[T]he Sixth Amendment is generally designed to elicit truth and protect innocence").
These defendants, rendered indigent, would fall back upon publicly paid counsel, including overworked and underpaid public defenders. As the Department of Justice explains, only 27 percent of county-based public defender offices have sufficient attorneys to meet nationally recommended caseload standards. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, D. Farole & L. Langton, Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007: County-based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007, p. 10 (Sept. 2010). And as one amicus points out, "[m]any federal public defender organizations and lawyers appointed under the Criminal Justice Act serve numerous clients and have only limited resources." Brief for New York Council of Defense Lawyers 11. The upshot is a substantial risk that accepting the Government's views would-by increasing the government-paid-defender workload-render less effective the basic right the Sixth Amendment seeks to protect.
3
We add that the constitutional line we have drawn should prove workable. That line distinguishes between a criminal defendant's (1) tainted funds and (2) innocent funds needed to pay for counsel. We concede, as Justice KENNEDY points out, post, at 1108 - 1110, that money is fungible; and sometimes it will be difficult to say whether a particular bank account contains tainted or untainted funds. But the law has tracing rules that help courts implement the kind of distinction we require in this case. With the help of those rules, the victim of a robbery, for example, will likely obtain the car that the robber used stolen money to buy. See, e.g., 1 G. Palmer, Law of Restitution § 2.14, p. 175 (1978) ("tracing" permits a claim against "an asset which is traceable to or the product of" tainted funds); 4 A. Scott, Law of Trusts § 518, pp. 3309-3314 (1956) (describing the tracing rules governing commingled accounts). And those rules will likely also prevent Luis from benefiting from many of the money transfers and purchases Justice KENNEDY describes. See post, at 1108 - 1109.
Courts use tracing rules in cases involving fraud, pension rights, bankruptcy, trusts, etc. See, e.g., Montanile v. Board of Trustees of Nat. Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, 577 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct. 651, 659-660, 193 L.Ed.2d 556 (2016). They consequently have experience separating tainted assets from untainted assets, just as they have experience determining how much money is needed to cover the costs of a lawyer. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1345(b) ("The court shall proceed as soon as practicable to the hearing and determination of [actions to freeze a defendant's tainted or untainted assets]"); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (courts must determine reasonable attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act); see also Kaley, 571 U.S., at ----, and n. 3, 134 S.Ct., at 1095, and n. 3 ("Since Monsanto, the lower courts have generally provided a hearing.... [to determine] whether probable cause exists to believe that the assets in dispute are traceable ... to the crime charged in the indictment"). We therefore see little reason to worry, as Justice KENNEDY seems to, that defendants will "be allowed to circumvent [the usual forfeiture rules] by using ... funds to pay for a high, or even the highest, priced defense team [they] can find." Post, at 1106.
* * *
For the reasons stated, we conclude that the defendant in this case has a Sixth Amendment right to use her own "innocent" property to pay a reasonable fee for the assistance of counsel. On the assumptions made here, the District Court's order prevents Luis from exercising that right. We consequently vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1345 provides:
"(a)(1) If a person is-
"(A) violating or about to violate this chapter or section 287, 371 (insofar as such violation involves a conspiracy to defraud the United States or any agency thereof), or 1001 of this title;
"(B) committing or about to commit a banking law violation (as defined in section 3322(d) of this title); or
"(C) committing or about to commit a Federal health care offense;
"the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any Federal court to enjoin such violation.
"(2) If a person is alienating or disposing of property, or intends to alienate or dispose of property, obtained as a result of a banking law violation (as defined in section 3322(d) of this title) or a Federal health care offense or property which is traceable to such violation, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any Federal court-
"(A) to enjoin such alienation or disposition of property; or
"(B) for a restraining order to-
"(i) prohibit any person from withdrawing, transferring, removing, dissipating, or disposing of any such property or property of equivalent value; and
"(ii) appoint a temporary receiver to administer such restraining order.
"(3) A permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order shall be granted without bond.
"(b) The court shall proceed as soon as practicable to the hearing and determination of such an action, and may, at any time before final determination, enter such a restraining order or prohibition, or take such other action, as is warranted to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the United States or to any person or class of persons for whose protection the action is brought. A proceeding under this section is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except that, if an indictment has been returned against the respondent, discovery is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."
Justice THOMAS, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the plurality that a pretrial freeze of untainted assets violates a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. But I do not agree with the plurality's balancing approach. Rather, my reasoning rests strictly on the Sixth Amendment's text and common-law backdrop.
The Sixth Amendment provides important limits on the Government's power to freeze a criminal defendant's forfeitable assets before trial. And, constitutional rights necessarily protect the prerequisites for their exercise. The right "to have the Assistance of Counsel," U.S. Const., Amdt. 6, thus implies the right to use lawfully owned property to pay for an attorney. Otherwise the right to counsel-originally understood to protect only the right to hire counsel of choice-would be meaningless. History confirms this textual understanding. The common law limited pretrial asset restraints to tainted assets. Both this textual understanding and history establish that the Sixth Amendment prevents the Government from freezing untainted assets in order to secure a potential forfeiture. The freeze here accordingly violates the Constitution.
I
The Sixth Amendment provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." As originally understood, this right guaranteed a defendant the right "to employ a lawyer to assist in his defense." Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 370, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979). The common law permitted counsel to represent defendants charged with misdemeanors, but not felonies other than treason. W. Beaney, The Right to Counsel in American Courts 8-9 (1955). The Sixth Amendment abolished the rule prohibiting representation in felony cases, but was "not aimed to compel the State to provide counsel for a defendant." Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 466, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595 (1942), overruled by Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) ; see Beaney, supra, at 27-36. "The right to select counsel of one's choice" is thus "the root meaning" of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 147-148, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006).
The Sixth Amendment denies the Government unchecked power to freeze a defendant's assets before trial simply to secure potential forfeiture upon conviction. If that bare expectancy of criminal punishment gave the Government such power, then a defendant's right to counsel of choice would be meaningless, because retaining an attorney requires resources. The law has long recognized that the "[a]uthorization of an act also authorizes a necessary predicate act." A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 192 (2012) (discussing the "predicate-act canon"). As Thomas Cooley put it with respect to Government powers, "where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one, or the performance of the other, is also conferred." Constitutional Limitations 63 (1868); see 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 464 (13th ed. 1884) ("[W]henever a power is given by a statute, everything necessary to the making of it effectual or requisite to attain the end is implied"). This logic equally applies to individual rights. After all, many rights are powers reserved to the People rather than delegated to the Government. Cf. U.S. Const., Amdt. 10 ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people").
Constitutional rights thus implicitly protect those closely related acts necessary to their exercise. "There comes a point ... at which the regulation of action intimately and unavoidably connected with [a right] is a regulation of [the right] itself." Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 745, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The right to keep and bear arms, for example, "implies a corresponding right to obtain the bullets necessary to use them," Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 967 (C.A.9 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), and "to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use,"
Ezell v. Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (C.A.7 2011). See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 617-618, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) (citing T. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law 271 (2d ed. 1891) (discussing the implicit right to train with weapons)); United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 180, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (citing 1 H. Osgood, The American Colonies in the 17th Century 499 (1904) (discussing the implicit right to possess ammunition)); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 178 (1871) (discussing both rights). Without protection for these closely related rights, the Second Amendment would be toothless. Likewise, the First Amendment "right to speak would be largely ineffective if it did not include the right to engage in financial transactions that are the incidents of its exercise." McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 252, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003) (Scalia, J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part).
The same goes for the Sixth Amendment and the financial resources required to obtain a lawyer. Without constitutional protection for at least some of a defendant's assets, the Government could ify the right to counsel of choice. As the plurality says, an unlimited power to freeze assets before trial "would unleash a principle of constitutional law that would have no obvious stopping place." Ante, at 1094; cf. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 431, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819) ("[T]he power to tax involves the power to destroy" and that "power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create"). Unless the right to counsel also protects the prerequisite right to use one's financial resources for an attorney, I doubt that the Framers would have gone through the trouble of adopting such a flimsy "parchment barrie[r]." The Federalist No. 48, p. 308 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).
An unlimited power to freeze a defendant's potentially forfeitable assets in advance of trial would eviscerate the Sixth Amendment's original meaning and purpose. At English common law, forfeiture of all real and personal property was a standard punishment for felonies. See 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 95 (1769) (Blackstone). That harsh penalty never caught on in America. See Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 682-683, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974). The First Congress banned it. See Crimes Act of 1790, § 24, 1 Stat. 117 ("[N]o conviction or judgment for any of the offences aforesaid, shall work corruption of blood, or any forfeiture of estate"). But the Constitution did not. See Art. III, § 3, cl. 2 ("[N]o Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted"). If the Government's mere expectancy of a total forfeiture upon conviction were sufficient to justify a complete pretrial asset freeze, then Congress could render the right to counsel a ity in felony cases. That would have shocked the Framers. As discussed, before adoption of the Sixth Amendment, felony cases (not misdemeanors) were precisely when the common law denied defendants the right to counsel. See supra, at 1097. With an unlimited power to freeze assets before trial, the Government could well revive the common-law felony rule that the Sixth Amendment was designed to abolish.
The modern, judicially created right to Government-appointed counsel does not obviate these concerns. As understood in 1791, the Sixth Amendment protected a defendant's right to retain an attorney he could afford. It is thus no answer, as the principal dissent replies, that defendants rendered indigent by a pretrial asset freeze can resort to public defenders.
Post, at 1110 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). The dissent's approach ifies the original understanding of the right to counsel. To ensure that the right to counsel has meaning, the Sixth Amendment limits the assets the Government may freeze before trial to secure eventual forfeiture.
II
The longstanding rule against restraining a criminal defendant's untainted property before conviction guarantees a meaningful right to counsel. The common-law forfeiture tradition provides the limits of this Sixth Amendment guarantee. That tradition draws a clear line between tainted and untainted assets. The only alternative to this common-law reading is case-by-case adjudication to determine which freezes are "legitimate" and which are an "abuse of ... power." McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 430. This piecemeal approach seems woefully inadequate. Such questions of degree are "unfit for the judicial department." Ibid. But see Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 635, 109 S.Ct. 2646, 105 L.Ed.2d 528 (1989) (stating in dicta that "[c]ases involving particular abuses can be dealt with individually ... when (and if) any such cases arise"). Fortunately the common law drew a clear line between tainted and untainted assets.
Pretrial freezes of untainted forfeitable assets did not emerge until the late 20th century. " '[T]he lack of historical precedent' " for the asset freeze here is " '[p]erhaps the most telling indication of a severe constitutional problem.' " Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 505-506, 130 S.Ct. 3138, 177 L.Ed.2d 706 (2010) (quoting Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 537 F.3d 667, 699 (C.A.D.C.2008) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting)). Indeed, blanket asset freezes are so tempting that the Government's "prolonged reticence would be amazing if [they] were not understood to be constitutionally proscribed." Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 230, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995) ; see Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 907-908, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997) (reasoning that the lack of early federal statutes commandeering state executive officers "suggests an assumed absence of such power" given "the attractiveness of that course to Congress").
The common law prohibited pretrial freezes of criminal defendants' untainted assets. As the plurality notes, ante, at 1094, for in personam criminal forfeitures like that at issue here, any interference with a defendant's property traditionally required a conviction. Forfeiture was "a part, or at least a consequence, of the judgment of conviction." The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1, 14, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827) (Story, J.). The defendant's "property cannot be touched before ... the forfeiture is completed." 1 J. Chitty, A Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law 737 (5th ed. 1847). This rule applied equally "to money as well as specific chattels." Id., at 736. And it was not limited to full-blown physical seizures. Although the defendant's goods could be appraised and inventoried before trial, he remained free to "sell any of them for his own support in prison, or that of his family, or to assist him in preparing for his defence on the trial ." Id., at 737 (emphasis added). Blackstone likewise agreed that a defendant "may bona fide sell any of his chattels, real or personal, for the sustenance of himself and family between the [offense] and conviction." 4 Blackstone 380; see Fleetwood's Case, 8 Co. Rep. 171a, 171b, 77 Eng. Rep. 731, 732 (K.B. 1611) (endorsing this rule). At most, a court could unwind prejudgment fraudulent transfers after conviction. 4 Blackstone 381; see Jones v. Ashurt, Skin. 357, 357-358, 90 Eng. Rep. 159 (K.B. 1693) (unwinding a fraudulent sale after conviction because it was designed to defeat forfeiture). Numerous English authorities confirm these common-law principles. Chitty, supra, at 736-737 (collecting sources).
The common law did permit the Government, however, to seize tainted assets before trial. For example, "seizure of the res has long been considered a prerequisite to the initiation of in rem forfeiture proceedings." United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 57, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993) (emphasis added); see The Brig Ann, 9 Cranch 289, 291, 3 L.Ed. 734 (1815) (Story, J.). But such forfeitures were traditionally "fixed ... by determining what property has been 'tainted' by unlawful use." Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 627, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). So the civil in rem forfeiture tradition tracks the tainted-untainted line. It provides no support for the asset freeze here.
There is a similarly well-established Fourth Amendment tradition of seizing contraband and stolen goods before trial based only on probable cause. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149-152, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925) (discussing this history); Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 623-624, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886) (same). Tainted assets fall within this tradition because they are the fruits or instrumentalities of crime. So the Government may freeze tainted assets before trial based on probable cause to believe that they are forfeitable. See United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 602-603, 615-616, 109 S.Ct. 2657, 105 L.Ed.2d 512 (1989). Nevertheless, our precedents require "a nexus ... between the item to be seized and criminal behavior." Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 307, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). Untainted assets almost never have such a nexus. The only exception is that some property that is evidence of crime might technically qualify as "untainted" but nevertheless has a nexus to criminal behavior. See ibid. Thus, untainted assets do not fall within the Fourth Amendment tradition either.
It is certainly the case that some early American statutes did provide for civil forfeiture of untainted substitute property. See Registry Act, § 12, 1 Stat. 293 (providing for forfeiture of a ship or "the value thereof"); Collection Act of July 31, 1789, § 22, 1 Stat. 42 (similar for goods); United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 341, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998) (collecting statutes). These statutes grew out of a broader "six-century-long tradition of in personam customs fines equal to one, two, three, or even four times the value of the goods at issue." Id., at 345-346, 118 S.Ct. 2028 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting).
But this long tradition of in personam customs fines does not contradict the general rule against pretrial seizures of untainted property. These fines' in personam status strongly suggests that the Government did not collect them by seizing property at the outset of litigation. As described, that process was traditionally required for in rem forfeiture of tainted assets. See supra, at 1099. There appears to be scant historical evidence, however, that forfeiture ever involved seizure of untainted assets before trial and judgment, except in limited circumstances not relevant here. Such summary procedures were reserved for collecting taxes and seizures during war. See Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595, 51 S.Ct. 608, 75 L.Ed. 1289 (1931) ; Miller v. United States, 11 Wall. 268, 304-306, 20 L.Ed. 135 (1871). The Government's right of action in tax and custom-fine cases may have been the same-"a civil action of debt." Bajakajian, supra, at 343, n. 18, 118 S.Ct. 2028 ; Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531, 543, 20 L.Ed. 491 (1871) ; Adams v. Woods, 2 Cranch 336, 341, 2 L.Ed. 297 (1805). Even so, nothing suggests trial and judgment were expendable. See Miller, supra, at 304-305 (stating in dicta that confiscating Confederate property through in rem proceedings would have raised Fifth and Sixth Amendment concerns had they not been a war measure).
The common law thus offers an administrable line: A criminal defendant's untainted assets are protected from Government interference before trial and judgment. His tainted assets, by contrast, may be seized before trial as contraband or through a separate in rem proceeding. Reading the Sixth Amendment to track the historical line between tainted and untainted assets makes good sense. It avoids case-by-case adjudication, and ensures that the original meaning of the right to counsel does real work. The asset freeze here infringes the right to counsel because it "is so broad that it differs not only in degree, but in kind, from its historical antecedents." James Daniel Good, supra, at 82, 114 S.Ct. 492 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The dissenters object that, before trial, a defendant has an identical property interest in tainted and untainted assets. See post, at 1106 - 1107 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.); post, at 1112 - 1113 (opinion of KAGAN, J.). Perhaps so. I need not take a position on the matter. Either way, that fact is irrelevant. Because the pretrial asset freeze here crosses into untainted assets, for which there is no historical tradition, it is unconstitutional. Any such incursion violates the Sixth Amendment.
III
Since the asset freeze here violates the Sixth Amendment, the plurality correctly concludes that the judgment below must be reversed. But I cannot go further and endorse the plurality's atextual balancing analysis. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel of choice. As discussed, a pretrial freeze of untainted assets infringes that right. This conclusion leaves no room for balancing. Moreover, I have no idea whether, "compared to the right to counsel of choice," the Government's interests in securing forfeiture and restitution lie "further from the heart of a fair, effective criminal justice system." Ante, at 1093. Judges are not well suited to strike the right "balance" between those incommensurable interests. Nor do I think it is our role to do so. The People, through ratification, have already weighed the policy tradeoffs that constitutional rights entail. See Heller, 554 U.S., at 634-635, 128 S.Ct. 2783. Those tradeoffs are thus not for us to reevaluate. "The very enumeration of the right" to counsel of choice denies us "the power to decide ... whether the right is really worth insisting upon." Id., at 634, 128 S.Ct. 2783. Such judicial balancing "do[es] violence" to the constitutional design. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 67-68, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). And it is out of step with our interpretive tradition. See Aleinikoff, Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing, 96 Yale L.J. 943, 949-952 (1987) (noting that balancing did not appear in the Court's constitutional analysis until the mid-20th century).
The plurality's balancing analysis also casts doubt on the constitutionality of incidental burdens on the right to counsel. For the most part, the Court's precedents hold that a generally applicable law placing only an incidental burden on a constitutional right does not violate that right. See R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 389-390, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (explaining that content-neutral laws do not violate the First Amendment simply because they incidentally burden expressive conduct); Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 878-882, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) (likewise for religion-neutral laws that burden religious exercise).
Criminal-procedure rights tend to follow the normal incidental-burden rule. The Constitution does not "forbi[d] every government-imposed choice in the criminal process that has the effect of discouraging the exercise of constitutional rights." Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17, 30, 93 S.Ct. 1977, 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973). The threat of more severe charges if a defendant refuses to plead guilty does not violate his right to trial. See Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 365, 98 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978). And, in my view, prosecutorial arguments that raise the "cost" of remaining silent do not violate a defendant's right against self-incrimination (at least as a matter of original meaning). See Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 342-343, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999) (THOMAS, J., dissenting); id., at 331-336, 119 S.Ct. 1307 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
The Sixth Amendment arguably works the same way. "[A] defendant may not insist on representation by an attorney he cannot afford." Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988). The Constitution perhaps guarantees only a "freedom of counsel" akin to the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion that also "depen[d] in part on one's financial wherewithal." Caplin & Drysdale, 491 U.S., at 628, 109 S.Ct. 2646. Numerous laws make it more difficult for defendants to retain a lawyer. But that fact alone does not create a Sixth Amendment problem. For instance, criminal defendants must still pay taxes even though "these financial levies may deprive them of resources that could be used to hire an attorney." Id., at 631-632, 109 S.Ct. 2646. So I lean toward the principal dissent's view that incidental burdens on the right to counsel of choice would not violate the Sixth Amendment. See post, at 1105 - 1106, 1108 - 1109 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.).
On the other hand, the Court has said that the right to counsel guarantees defendants "a fair opportunity to secure counsel of [their] choice." Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 52-53, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932) (emphasis added). The state court in Powell denied the defendants such an opportunity, the Court held, by moving to trial so quickly (six days after indictment) that the defendants had no chance to communicate with family or otherwise arrange for representation. Ibid. The schedule in Powell was not designed to block counsel, which suggests the usual incidental-burden rule might be inapt in the Sixth Amendment context. I leave the question open because this case does not require an answer.
The asset freeze here is not merely an incidental burden on the right to counsel of choice; it targets a defendant's assets, which are necessary to exercise that right, simply to secure forfeiture upon conviction. The prospect of that criminal punishment, however, is precisely why the Constitution guarantees a right to counsel. The Sixth Amendment does not permit the Government's bare expectancy of forfeiture to void that right. When the potential of a conviction is the only basis for interfering with a defendant's assets before trial, the Constitution requires the Government to respect the longstanding common-law protection for a defendant's untainted property.
For these reasons, I concur only in the judgment.
Justice KENNEDY, with whom Justice ALITO joins, dissenting.
The plurality and Justice THOMAS find in the Sixth Amendment a right of criminal defendants to pay for an attorney with funds that are forfeitable upon conviction so long as those funds are not derived from the crime alleged. That unprecedented holding rewards criminals who hurry to spend, conceal, or launder stolen property by assuring them that they may use their own funds to pay for an attorney after they have dissipated the proceeds of their crime. It matters not, under today's ruling, that the defendant's remaining assets must be preserved if the victim or the Government is to recover for the property wrongfully taken. By granting a defendant a constitutional right to hire an attorney with assets needed to make a property-crime victim whole, the plurality and Justice THOMAS ignore this Court's precedents and distort the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The result reached today makes little sense in cases that involve fungible assets preceded by fraud, embezzlement, or other theft. An example illustrates the point. Assume a thief steals $1 million and then wins another $1 million in a lottery. After putting the sums in separate accounts, he or she spends $1 million. If the thief spends his or her lottery winnings, the Government can restrain the stolen funds in their entirety. The thief has no right to use those funds to pay for an attorney. Yet if the thief heeds today's decision, he or she will spend the stolen money first; for if the thief is apprehended, the $1 million won in the lottery can be used for an attorney. This result is not required by the Constitution.
The plurality reaches its conclusion by weighing a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice against the Government's interest in preventing the dissipation of assets forfeitable upon conviction. In so doing, it-like Justice THOMAS-sweeps aside the decisions in Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 109 S.Ct. 2646, 105 L.Ed.2d 528 (1989), and United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 109 S.Ct. 2657, 105 L.Ed.2d 512 (1989), both of which make clear that a defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to spend forfeitable assets (or assets that will be forfeitable) on an attorney. The principle the Court adopted in those cases applies with equal force here. Rather than apply that principle, however, the plurality and concurrence adopt a rule found nowhere in the Constitution or this Court's precedents-that the Sixth Amendment protects a person's right to spend otherwise forfeitable assets on an attorney so long as those assets are not related to or the direct proceeds of the charged crime. Ante, at 1087 (plurality opinion); ante, at 1096 - 1097 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). The reasoning in these separate opinions is incorrect, and requires this respectful dissent.
I
This case arises from petitioner Sila Luis' indictment for conspiring to commit health care fraud against the United States. The Government alleges that, as part of her illegal scheme, Luis used her health care companies to defraud Medicare by billing for services that were not medically necessary or actually provided. The charged crimes, the Government maintains, resulted in the payment of $45 million in improper Medicare benefits to Luis' companies.
The same day Luis was indicted, the Government initiated a civil action under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 to restrain Luis' assets before her criminal trial, including substitute property of an amount equivalent to the value of the proceeds of her alleged crimes. To establish its entitlement to a restraining order, the Government showed that Luis and her co-conspirators were dissipating the illegally obtained assets. In particular, they were transferring money involved in the scheme to various individuals and entities, including shell corporations owned by Luis' family members. As part of this process, Luis opened and closed well over 40 bank accounts and withdrew large amounts of cash to hide the conspiracy's proceeds. Luis personally received almost $4.5 million in funds and used at least some of that money to purchase luxury items, real estate, and automobiles, and to travel. Based on this and other evidence, the District Court entered an order prohibiting Luis from spending up to $45 million of her assets.
Before the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Luis argued that the Sixth Amendment required that she be allowed to spend the restrained substitute assets on an attorney. The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that "[t]he arguments made by Luis ... are foreclosed by the United States Supreme Court decisions in ... Caplin & Drysdale [and] Monsanto ." 564 Fed.Appx. 493, 494 (2014) (per curiam ). In my view the Court of Appeals was correct, and its judgment should be affirmed.
II
A
In Caplin & Drysdale, a law firm had represented a defendant charged with running a massive drug-distribution scheme. The defendant pleaded guilty and agreed to forfeit his assets. The law firm then sought to recover a portion of the forfeited assets for its legal fees. The firm argued that, when a defendant needs forfeitable assets to pay for an attorney, the forfeiture of those assets violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be represented by his counsel of choice.
The Court rejected the firm's argument. The Sixth Amendment, the Court explained, "guarantees defendants in criminal cases the right to adequate representation, but those who do not have the means to hire their own lawyers have no cognizable complaint so long as they are adequately represented by attorneys appointed by the courts." Caplin & Drysdale, 491 U.S., at 624, 109 S.Ct. 2646. As for the right to choose one's own attorney, the Court observed that "nothing in [the forfeiture statute] prevents a defendant from hiring the attorney of his choice, or disqualifies any attorney from serving as a defendant's counsel." Id., at 625, 109 S.Ct. 2646. Even defendants who possess "nothing but assets the Government seeks to have forfeited ... may be able to find lawyers willing to represent them, hoping that their fees will be paid in the event of acquittal, or via some other means that a defendant might come by in the future." Ibid . The burden imposed by forfeiture law, the Court concluded, is thus "a limited one." Ibid .
Caplin & Drysdale also repudiated the firm's contention that the Government has only a modest interest in forfeitable assets that may be used to retain an attorney. In light of the importance of separating criminals from their ill-gotten gains and providing restitution to victims of crime, the Court found "a strong governmental interest in obtaining full recovery of all forfeitable assets, an interest that overrides any Sixth Amendment interest in permitting criminals to use assets adjudged forfeitable to pay for their defense." Id., at 631, 109 S.Ct. 2646.
The same day the Court decided Caplin & Drysdale it decided Monsanto, which addressed the pretrial restraint of a defendant's assets "where the defendant seeks to use those assets to pay an attorney." 491 U.S., at 602, 109 S.Ct. 2657. The Court rejected the notion that there is a meaningful distinction, for Sixth Amendment purposes, between the restraint of assets before trial and the forfeiture of assets after trial: "[I]f the Government may, post-trial, forbid the use of forfeited assets to pay an attorney, then surely no constitutional violation occurs when, after probable cause is adequately established, the Government obtains an order barring a defendant from frustrating that end by dissipating his assets prior to trial." Id., at 616, 109 S.Ct. 2657. The Court noted, moreover, that "it would be odd to conclude that the Government may not restrain property ... in [a defendant's] possession, based on a finding of probable cause, when we have held that (under appropriate circumstances), the Government may restrain persons where there is a finding of probable cause." Id., at 615-616, 109 S.Ct. 2657. When a defendant himself can be restrained pretrial, there is "no constitutional infirmity" in a similar pretrial restraint of a defendant's property "to protect its 'appearance' at trial and protect the community's interest in full recovery of any ill-gotten gains." Id., at 616, 109 S.Ct. 2657.
B
The principle the Court announced in Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto controls the result here. Those cases establish that a pretrial restraint of assets forfeitable upon conviction does not contravene the Sixth Amendment even when the defendant possesses no other funds with which to pay for an attorney. The restraint itself does not prevent a defendant from seeking to convince his or her counsel of choice to take on the representation without advance payment. See Caplin & Drysdale, 491 U.S., at 625, 109 S.Ct. 2646. It does not disqualify any attorney the defendant might want. Ibid. And it does not prevent a defendant from borrowing funds to pay for an attorney who is otherwise too expensive. To be sure, a pretrial restraint may make it difficult for a defendant to secure counsel who insists that high defense costs be paid in advance. That difficulty, however, does not result in a Sixth Amendment violation any more than high taxes or other government exactions that impose a similar burden. See, e.g., id., at 631-632, 109 S.Ct. 2646 ("Criminal defendants ... are not exempted from federal, state, and local taxation simply because these financial levies may deprive them of resources that could be used to hire an attorney").
The pretrial restraint in Monsanto was no more burdensome than the pretrial restraint at issue here. Luis, like the defendant in Monsanto, was not barred from obtaining the assistance of any particular attorney. She was free to seek lawyers willing to represent her in the hopes that their fees would be paid at some future point. In short, § 1345's authorization of a pretrial restraint of substitute assets places no greater burden on a defendant like Luis than the forfeiture and pretrial restraint statute placed on the defendant in Monsanto .
In addition, the Government has the same "strong ... interest in obtaining full recovery of all forfeitable assets" here as it did in Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto . See Caplin & Drysdale, supra, at 631, 109 S.Ct. 2646. If Luis is convicted, the Government has a right to recover Luis' substitute assets-the money she kept for herself while spending the taxpayer dollars she is accused of stealing. Just as the Government has an interest in ensuring Luis' presence at trial-an interest that can justify a defendant's pretrial detention-so too does the Government have an interest in ensuring the availability of her substitute assets after trial, an interest that can justify pretrial restraint.
One need look no further than the Court's concluding words in Monsanto to know the proper result here: "[N]o constitutional violation occurs when, after probable cause [to believe that a defendant's assets will be forfeitable] is adequately established, the Government obtains an order barring a defendant from ... dissipating his assets prior to trial." 491 U.S., at 616, 109 S.Ct. 2657. The Government, having established probable cause to believe that Luis' substitute assets will be forfeitable upon conviction, should be permitted to obtain a restraining order barring her from spending those funds prior to trial. Luis should not be allowed to circumvent that restraint by using the funds to pay for a high, or even the highest, priced defense team she can find.
III
The plurality maintains that Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto do not apply because "the nature of the assets at issue here differs from the assets at issue in those earlier cases." Ante, at 1090. According to the plurality, the property here "belongs to the defendant, pure and simple." Ibid . It states that, while "title to property used to commit a crime ... often passes to the Government at the instant the crime is planned or committed," title to Luis' untainted property has not passed to the Government. Ante, at 1090. "That fact," the plurality concludes, "undermines the Government's reliance upon precedent, for both Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto relied critically upon the fact that the property at issue was 'tainted,' and that title to the property therefore had passed from the defendant to the Government before the court issued its order freezing (or otherwise disposing of) the assets." Ibid.
These conclusions depend upon a key premise: The Government owns tainted assets before a defendant is convicted. That premise is quite incorrect, for the common law and this Court's precedents establish that the opposite is true. The Government does not own property subject to forfeiture, whether tainted or untainted, until the Government wins a judgment of forfeiture or the defendant is convicted. As Blackstone noted with emphasis, "goods and chattels are forfeited by conviction ." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 380 (1769) (Blackstone). Justice Story likewise observed that "no right to the goods and chattels of the felon could be acquired by the crown by the mere commission of the offence; but the right attached only by the conviction of the offender." The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1, 14, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827) ; ibid. ("In the contemplation of the common law, the offender's right was not devested until the conviction").
These authorities demonstrate that Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto cannot be distinguished based on "the nature of the assets at issue." Title to the assets in those cases did not pass from the defendant to the Government until conviction. As a result, the assets restrained before conviction in Monsanto were on the same footing as the assets restrained here: There was probable cause to believe that the assets would belong to the Government upon conviction. But when the court issued its restraining order, they did not. The Government had no greater ownership interest in Monsanto's tainted assets than it has in Luis' substitute assets.
The plurality seeks to avoid this conclusion by relying on the relation-back doctrine. In its view the doctrine gives the Government title to tainted assets upon the commission of a crime rather than upon conviction or judgment of forfeiture. Even assuming, as this reasoning does, that the relation-back doctrine applies only to tainted assets-but see United States v. McHan, 345 F.3d 262, 270-272 (C.A.4 2003) -the doctrine does not do the work the plurality's analysis requires.
The relation-back doctrine, which is incorporated in some forfeiture statutes, see, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 853(c), has its origins in the common law. Under this legal construct, the Government's title to certain types of forfeitable property relates back to the time at which the defendant committed the crime giving rise to the forfeiture. See 4 Blackstone 375 ("forfeiture [of real estates] relates backwards to the time of the treason committed; so as to avoid all intermediate sales and incumbrances"); United States v. Parcel of Rumson, N.J., Land, 507 U.S. 111, 125, 113 S.Ct. 1126, 122 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (plurality opinion). The doctrine's purpose is to prevent defendants from avoiding forfeiture by transferring their property to third parties. The doctrine, however, does not alter the time at which title to forfeitable property passes to the Government. Title is transferred only when a conviction is obtained or the assets are otherwise forfeited; it is only once this precondition is met that relation back to the time of the offense is permitted. See ibid . (The relation-back doctrine's "fictional and retroactive vesting" is "not self-executing"); id., at 132, 113 S.Ct. 1126 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) ("The relation-back rule applies only in cases where the Government's title has been consummated by seizure, suit, and judgment, or decree of condemnation, whereupon the doctrine of relation carries back the title to the commission of the offense" (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted)); United States v. Grundy, 3 Cranch 337, 350-351, 2 L.Ed. 459 (1806) (Marshall, C.J., opinion for the Court) (a forfeitable asset does not "ves[t] in the government until some legal step shall be taken for the assertion of its right"); 4 Blackstone 375 ("But, though after attainder the forfeiture relates back to the time of the treason committed, yet it does not take effect unless an attainder be had"). In short, forfeitable property does not belong to the Government in any sense before judgment or conviction. Cf. ante, at 1091 - 1092 (plurality opinion). Until the Government wins a judgment or conviction, "someone else owns the property." Parcel of Rumson, supra, at 127, 113 S.Ct. 1126.
The plurality is correct to note that Caplin & Drysdale discussed the relation-back provision in the forfeiture statute at issue. The Caplin & Drysdale Court did not do so, however, to suggest that forfeitable assets can be restrained only when the assets are tainted. Rather, the Court referred to the provision to rebut the law firm's argument that the United States has less of an interest in forfeitable property than robbery victims have in their stolen property. 491 U.S., at 627-628, 109 S.Ct. 2646. More to the point, central to the Court's decision was its observation that, because the Government obtained "title to [the defendant's] assets upon conviction," it would be "peculiar" to hold that the Sixth Amendment still gave the defendant the right to pay his attorney with those assets. Id., at 628, 109 S.Ct. 2646. Monsanto reinforced that view, holding that the pretrial restraint of assets-money to which the Government does not yet have title-is permissible even when the defendant wants to use those assets to pay for counsel. 491 U.S., at 616, 109 S.Ct. 2657.
True, the assets in Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto happened to be derived from the criminal activity alleged; but the Court's reasoning in those cases was based on the Government's entitlement to recoup money from criminals who have profited from their crimes, not on tracing or identifying the actual assets connected to the crime. For this reason, the principle the Court announced in those cases applies whenever the Government obtains (or will obtain) title to assets upon conviction. Nothing in either case depended on the assets being tainted or justifies refusing to apply the rule from those cases here.
The plurality makes much of various statutory provisions that, in its view, give the United States a superior interest before trial in tainted assets but not untainted ones. See ante, at 1091 - 1092. That view, however, turns not on any reasoning specific to the Sixth Amendment but rather on Congress' differential treatment of tainted versus untainted assets. The plurality makes no attempt to explain why Congress' decision in § 1345 to permit the pretrial restraint of substitute assets is not also relevant to its analysis. More to the point, Congress' statutory treatment of property is irrelevant to a Sixth Amendment analysis. The protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment should not turn on congressional whims.
The plurality's concern over the implications of the Government's position appears animated by a hypothetical future case where a defendant's assets are restrained not to return stolen funds but, for example, to pay a fine. That case, however, is not the case before the Court. Section 1345 authorizes pretrial restraints to preserve substitute assets, not to provide for fines greater than the amounts stolen. The holdings in Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto, and what should be the holding today, thus, do not address the result in a case involving a fine. The governmental interests at stake when a fine is at issue are quite separate and distinct from the interests implicated here. This case implicates the Government's interest in preventing the dissipation, transfer, and concealment of stolen funds, as well as its interest in preserving for victims any funds that remain. Those interests justify, in cases like this one, the pretrial restraint of substitute assets.
IV
The principle the plurality and Justice THOMAS announce today-that a defendant has a right to pay for an attorney with forfeitable assets so long as those assets are not related to or the direct proceeds of the crime alleged-has far-reaching implications. There is no clear explanation why this principle does not extend to the exercise of other constitutional rights. "If defendants have a right to spend forfeitable assets on attorney's fees, why not on exercises of the right to speak, practice one's religion, or travel?" Caplin & Drysdale, 491 U.S., at 628, 109 S.Ct. 2646. Nor does either opinion provide any way to distinguish between the restraint at issue here and other governmental interferences with a defendant's assets. If the restraint of Luis' assets violates the Sixth Amendment, could the same be said of any imposition on a criminal defendant's assets? Cf. id., at 631, 109 S.Ct. 2646 ("[S]eizures of assets to secure potential tax liabilities ... may impair a defendant's ability to retain counsel ... [y]et these assessments have been upheld against constitutional attack"). If a defendant is fined in a prior matter, is the Government barred from collecting the fine if it will leave the defendant unable to afford a particular attorney in a current case? No explanation is provided for what, if any, limits there are on the invented exemption for attorney's fees.
The result today also creates arbitrary distinctions between defendants. Money, after all, is fungible. There is no difference between a defendant who has preserved his or her own assets by spending stolen money and a defendant who has spent his or her own assets and preserved stolen cash instead. Yet the plurality and concurrence-for different reasons-find in the Sixth Amendment the rule that greater protection is given to the defendant who, by spending, laundering, exporting, or concealing stolen money first, preserves his or her remaining funds for use on an attorney.
The true winners today are sophisticated criminals who know how to make criminal proceeds look untainted. They do so every day. They "buy cashier's checks, money orders, nonbank wire transfers, prepaid debit cards, and traveler's checks to use instead of cash for purchases or bank deposits." Dept. of Treasury, National Money Laundering Risk Assessment 2015, p. 3. They structure their transactions to avoid triggering recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Ibid. And they open bank accounts in other people's names and through shell companies, all to disguise the origins of their funds. Ibid.
The facts of this case illustrate the measures one might take to conceal or dispose of ill-gotten gains. In declarations relied on by the District Court, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent investigating the case explained that "Luis transferred monies or caused the transfer of monies received from Medicare to ... family members and companies owned by family members," including $1,471,000 to her husband, and over a million dollars to her children and former daughter-in-law. App. 72-73. She also "used Medicare monies for foreign travel," including approximately 31 trips to Mexico, "where she owns several properties and has numerous bank accounts." Id., at 73. She "transferred Medicare monies overseas through international wire transfers to Mexico." Ibid. And the Government was "able to trace Medicare proceeds going into [all but one of the] bank account[s] owned by Defendant Luis and/or her companies listed in the Court's" temporary restraining order. Id., at 74. No doubt Luis would have enjoyed her travel and expenditures even more had she known that, were her alleged wrongs discovered, a majority of the Justices would insist that she be allowed to pay her chosen legal team at the price they set rather than repay her victim.
Notwithstanding that the Government established probable cause to believe that Luis committed numerous crimes and used the proceeds of those crimes to line her and her family's pockets, the plurality and Justice THOMAS reward Luis' decision to spend the money she is accused of stealing rather than her own. They allow Luis to bankroll her private attorneys as well as "the best and most industrious investigators, experts, paralegals, and law clerks" money can buy-a legal defense team Luis claims she cannot otherwise afford. See Corrected Motion to Modify the Restraining Order in No. 12-Civ-23588, p. 13 (SD Fla., Nov. 16, 2012). The Sixth Amendment does not provide such an unfettered right to counsel of choice.
It is well settled that the right to counsel of choice is limited in important respects. A defendant cannot demand a lawyer who is not a member of the bar. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988). Nor may a defendant insist on an attorney who has a conflict of interest. Id., at 159, 164, 108 S.Ct. 1692. And, as quite relevant here, "a defendant may not insist on representation by an attorney he cannot afford." Id., at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. As noted earlier, "those who do not have the means to hire their own lawyers have no cognizable complaint so long as they are adequately represented by attorneys appointed by the courts." Caplin & Drysdale, 491 U.S., at 624, 109 S.Ct. 2646. As a result of the District Court's order, Luis simply cannot afford the legal team she desires unless they are willing to represent her without advance payment. For Sixth Amendment purposes, the only question here is whether Luis' right to adequate representation is protected. That question is not before the Court. Neither Luis nor the plurality nor Justice THOMAS suggests that Luis will receive inadequate representation if she is not able to use the restrained funds. And this is for good reason. Given the large volume of defendants in the criminal justice system who rely on public representation, it would be troubling to suggest that a defendant who might be represented by a public defender will receive inadequate representation. See generally T. Giovanni & R. Patel, Gideon at 50: Three Reforms to Revive the Right to Counsel 1 (2013), online at http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Gideon_Report_040913.pdf (as last visited Mar. 28, 2016). Since Luis cannot afford the legal team she desires, and because there is no indication that she will receive inadequate representation as a result, she does not have a cognizable Sixth Amendment complaint.
The plurality does warn that accepting the Government's position "would-by increasing the government-paid-defender workload-render less effective the basic right the Sixth Amendment seeks to protect." Ante, at 1095. Public-defender offices, the plurality suggests, already lack sufficient attorneys to meet nationally recommended caseload standards. Ibid. But concerns about the caseloads of public-defender offices do not justify a constitutional command to treat a defendant accused of committing a lucrative crime differently than a defendant who is indigent from the outset. The Constitution does not require victims of property crimes to fund subsidies for members of the private defense bar.
Because the rule announced today is anchored in the Sixth Amendment, moreover, it will frustrate not only the Federal Government's use of § 1345 but also the States' administration of their forfeiture schemes. Like the Federal Government, States also face criminals who engage in money laundering through extensive enterprises that extend to other States and beyond. Where a defendant has put stolen money beyond a State's reach, a State should not be precluded from freezing the assets the defendant has in hand. The obstacle that now stands in the States' way is not found in the Constitution. It is of the Court's making.
Finally, the plurality posits that its decision "should prove workable" because courts "have experience separating tainted assets from untainted assets, just as they have experience determining how much money is needed to cover the costs of a lawyer." Ante, at 1095. Neither of these assurances is adequate.
As to the first, the plurality cites a number of sources for the proposition that courts have rules that allow them to implement the distinction it adopts. Ibid. Those rules, however, demonstrate the illogic of the conclusion that there is a meaningful difference between the actual dollars stolen and the dollars of equivalent value in a defendant's bank account. The plurality appears to agree that, if a defendant is indicted for stealing $1 million, the Government can obtain an order preventing the defendant from spending the $1 million he or she is believed to have stolen. The situation gets more complicated, however, when the defendant deposits the stolen $1 million into an account that already has $1 million. If the defendant then spends $1 million from the account, it cannot be determined with certainty whether the money spent was stolen money rather than money the defendant already had. The question arises, then, whether the Government can restrain the remaining million.
One of the treatises on which the plurality relies answers that question. The opinion cites A. Scott's Law of Trusts to support the claim that "the law has tracing rules that help courts implement the kind of distinction ... require[d] in this case." Ante, at 1095. The treatise says that, if a "wrongdoer has mingled misappropriated money with his own money and later makes withdrawals from the mingled fund," assuming the withdrawals do not result in a zero balance, a person who has an interest in the misappropriated money can recover it from the amount remaining in the account. 4 A. Scott, Law of Trusts § 518, pp. 3309-3310 (1956). Based on this rule, one would expect the plurality to agree that, in the above hypothetical, the Government could restrain up to the full amount of the stolen funds-that is, the full $1 million-without having to establish whether the $1 million the defendant spent was stolen money or not. If that is so, it is hard to see why its opinion treats as different a situation where the defendant has two bank accounts-one with the $1 million from before the crime and one with the stolen $1 million. If the defendant spends the money in the latter account, the Government should be allowed to freeze the money in the former account in the same way it could if the defendant spent the money out of a single, commingled account. The Sixth Amendment provides no justification for the decision to mandate different treatment in these all-but-identical situations.
The plurality sees "little reason to worry" about defendants circumventing forfeiture because courts can use rules like the tracing rule discussed above. Ante, at 1095 - 1096. It also asserts that these rules "will likely ... prevent Luis from benefiting from many of [her] money transfers and purchases." Ibid. That proposition is doubtful where, as here, "a lot of money was taken out in cash from the defendant's bank accounts" because "[y]ou can't trace cash." App. 155. Even were that not the case, this assertion fails to appreciate that it takes time to trace tainted assets. As the FBI agent testified, at the time of the hearing both the tracing and the FBI's analysis were "still ongoing." Ibid. The whole purpose of a pretrial restraint under § 1345 is to maintain the status quo in cases, like this one, where a defendant is accused of committing crimes that involve fungible property, e.g., a banking law violation or a federal health care offense. The plurality's approach serves to benefit the most sophisticated of criminals whose web of transfers and concealment will take the longest to unravel. For if the Government cannot establish at the outset that every dollar subject to restraint is derived from the crime alleged, the defendant can spend that money on whatever defense team he or she desires.
Of equal concern is the assertion that a defendant's right to counsel of choice is limited to only those attorneys who charge a "reasonable fee." Ante, at 1095 - 1096. If Luis has a right to use the restrained substitute assets to pay for the counsel of her choice, then why can she not hire the most expensive legal team she can afford? In the plurality's view, the reason Luis can use the restrained funds for an attorney is because they are still hers. But if that is so, then she should be able to use all $2 million of her remaining assets to pay for a lawyer. The plurality's willingness to curtail the very right it recognizes reflects the need to preserve substitute assets from further dissipation.
* * *
Today's ruling abandons the principle established in Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto. In its place is an approach that creates perverse incentives and provides protection for defendants who spend stolen money rather than their own.
In my respectful view this is incorrect, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence. | What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision? | [
"judicial review (national level)",
"judicial review (state level)",
"Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction",
"statutory construction",
"interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order",
"diversity jurisdiction",
"federal common law"
] | [
0
] | sc |
BURNHAM v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MARIN (BURNHAM, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST)
No. 89-44.
Argued February 28, 1990
Decided May 29, 1990
Scalia, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined, and in which White, J., joined as to Parts I, II-A, II-B, and II-C. White, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 628. Brennan, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Marshall, Blackmun, and O’Connor, JJ., joined, post, p. 628. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 640.
Richard Sherman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Victoria J. De Goff and Cecilia Lannon.
James O. Devereaux argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Robert L. Nelson.
Justice Scalia
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy join, and in which Justice White joins with respect to Parts I, II-A, II-B, and II-C.
The question presented is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment denies California courts jurisdiction over a nonresident, who was personally served with process while temporarily in that State, in a suit unrelated to his activities in the State.
I
Petitioner Dennis Burnham married Francie Burnham in 1976 in West Virginia. In 1977 the couple moved to New Jersey, where their two children were born. In July 1987 the Burnhams decided to separate. They agreed that Mrs. Burnham, who intended to move to California, would take custody of the children. Shortly before Mrs. Burnham departed for California that same month, she and petitioner agreed that she would file for divorce on grounds of “irreconcilable differences.”
In October 1987, petitioner filed for divorce in New Jersey state court on grounds of “desertion.” Petitioner did not, however, obtain an issuance of summons against his wife and did not attempt to serve her with process. Mrs. Burnham, after unsuccessfully demanding that petitioner adhere to their prior agreement to submit to an “irreconcilable differences” divorce, brought suit for divorce in California state court in early January 1988.
In late January, petitioner visited southern California on business, after which he went.north to visit his children in the San Francisco Bay area, where his wife resided. He took the older child to San Francisco for the weekend. Upon returning the child to Mrs. Burnham’s home on January 24, 1988, petitioner was served with a California court summons and a copy of Mrs. Burnham’s divorce petition. He then returned to New Jersey.
Later that year, petitioner made a special appearance in the California Superior Court, moving to quash the service of process on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because his only contacts with California were a few short visits to the State for the purposes of conducting business and visiting his children. The Superior Court denied the motion, and the California Court of Appeal denied mandamus relief, rejecting petitioner’s contention that the Due Process Clause prohibited California courts from asserting jurisdiction over him because he lacked “minimum contacts” with the State. The court held it to be “a valid jurisdictional predicate for in personam jurisdiction” that the “defendant [was] present in the forum state and personally served with process.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 5. We granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 807 (1989).
II
A
The proposition that the judgment of a court lacking jurisdiction is void traces back to the English Year Books, see Bowser v. Collins, Y. B. Mich. 22 Edw. IV, f. 30, pl. 11, 145 Eng. Rep. 97 (Ex. Ch. 1482), and was made settled law by Lord Coke in Case of the Marshalsea, 10 Coke Rep. 68b, 77a, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027, 1041 (K. B. 1612). Traditionally that proposition was embodied in the phrase coram non judice, “before a person not a judge” — meaning, in effect, that the proceeding in question was not a judicial proceeding because lawful judicial authority was not present, and could therefore not yield a judgment. American courts invalidated, or denied recognition to, judgments that violated this common-law principle long before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. See, e. g., Grumon v. Raymond, 1 Conn. 40 (1814); Picquet v. Swan, 19 F. Cas. 609 (No. 11,134) (CC Mass. 1828); Dunn v. Dunn, 4 Paige 425 (N. Y. Ch. 1834); Evans v. Instine, 7 Ohio 273 (1835); Steel v. Smith, 7 Watts & Serg. 447 (Pa. 1844); Boswell’s Lessee v. Otis, 9 How. 336, 350 (1850). In Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 732 (1878), we announced that the judgment of a court lacking personal jurisdiction violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well.
To determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction is consistent with due process, we have long relied on the principles traditionally followed by American courts in marking out the territorial limits of each State’s authority. That criterion was first announced in Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, in which we stated that due process “mean[s] a course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights,” id., at 733, including the “well-established principles of public law respecting the jurisdiction of an independent State over persons and property,” id., at 722. In what has become the classic expression of the criterion, we said in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945), that a state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction satisfies the Due Process Clause if it does not violate “ ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Id., at 316, quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 463 (1940). See also Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U. S. 694, 703 (1982). Since International Shoe, we have only been called upon to decide whether these “traditional notions” permit States to exercise jurisdiction over absent defendants in a manner that deviates from the rules of jurisdiction applied in the 19th century. We have held such deviations permissible, but only with respect to suits arising out of the absent defendant’s contacts with the State. See, e. g., Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U. S. 408, 414 (1984). The question we must decide today is whether due process requires a similar connection between the litigation and the defendant’s contacts with the State in cases where the defendant is physically present in the State at the time process is served upon him.
B
Among the most firmly established principles of personal jurisdiction in American tradition is that the courts of a State have jurisdiction over nonresidents who are physically present in the State. The view developed early that each State had the power to hale before its courts any individual who could be found within its borders, and that once having acquired jurisdiction over such a person by properly serving him with process, the State could retain jurisdiction to enter judgment against him, no matter how fleeting his visit. See, e. g., Potter v. Allin, 2 Root 63, 67 (Conn. 1793); Barrell v. Benjamin, 15 Mass. 354 (1819). That view had antecedents in English common-law practice, which sometimes allowed “transitory” actions, arising out of events outside the country, to be maintained against seemingly .nonresident defendants who were present in England. See, e. g., Mostyn v. Fabrigas, 98 Eng. Rep. 1021 (K. B. 1774); Cartwright v. Pettus, 22 Eng. Rep. 916 (Ch. 1675). Justice Story believed the principle, which he traced to Roman origins, to be firmly grounded in English tradition: “[B]y the common law[,] personal actions, being transitory, may be brought in any place, where the party defendant may be found,” for “every nation may . . . rightfully exercise jurisdiction over all persons within its domains.” J. Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws §§ 554, 543 (1846). See also id., §§ 530-538; Picquet v. Swan, supra, at 611-612 (Story, J.) (“Where a party is within a territory, he may justly be subjected to its process, and bound personally by the judgment pronounced, on such process, against him”).
Recent scholarship has suggested that English tradition was not as clear as Story thought, see Hazard, A General Theory of State-Court Jurisdiction, 1965 S. Ct. Rev. 241, 253-260; Ehrenzweig, The Transient Rule of Personal Jurisdiction: The “Power” Myth and Forum Conveniens, 65 Yale L. J. 289 (1956). Accurate or not, however, judging by the evidence of contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous decisions, one must conclude that Story’s understanding was shared by American courts at the crucial time for present purposes: 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The following passage in a decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia, in an action on a debt having no apparent relation to the defendant’s temporary presence in the State, is representative:
“Can a citizen of Alabama be sued in this State, as he passes through it?
“Undoubtedly he can. The second of the axioms of Huberus, as translated by Story, is: ‘that all persons who are found within the limits of a government, whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are to be deemed subjects thereof.’ (Stor. Conf. Laws, §29, Note 3.)
“. . . [A] citizen of another State, who is merely passing through this, resides, as he passes, wherever he is. Let him be sued, therefore, wherever he may, he will be sued where he resides.
“The plaintiff in error, although a citizen of Alabama, was passing through the County of Troup, in this State, and whilst doing so, he was sued in Troup. He was liable to be sued in this State, and in Troup County of this State.” Murphy v. J. S. Winter & Co., 18 Ga. 690, 691-692 (1855).
See also, e. g., Peabody v. Hamilton, 106 Mass. 217, 220 (1870) (relying on Story for the same principle); Alley v. Caspari, 80 Me. 234, 236-237, 14 A. 12, 13 (1888) (same).
Decisions in the courts of many States in the 19th and early 20th centuries held that personal service upon a physically present defendant sufficed to confer jurisdiction, without regard to whether the defendant was only briefly in the State or whether the cause of action was related to his activities there. See, e. g., Vinal v. Core, 18 W. Va. 1, 20 (1881); Roberts v. Dunsmuir, 75 Cal. 203, 204, 16 P. 782 (1888); De Poret v. Gusman, 30 La. Ann., pt. 2, pp. 930, 932 (1878); Smith v. Gibson, 83 Ala. 284, 285, 3 So. 321 (1887); Savin v. Bond, 57 Md. 228, 233 (1881); Hart v. Granger, 1 Conn. 154, 165 (1814); Mussina v. Belden, 6 Abb. Pr. 165, 176 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1858); Darrah v. Watson, 36 Iowa 116, 120-121 (1872); Baisley v. Baisley, 113 Mo. 544, 549-550, 21 S. W. 29, 30 (1893); Bowman v. Flint, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 28, 29, 82 S. W. 1049, 1050 (1904). See also Reed v. Hollister, 106 Ore. 407, 412-414, 212 P. 367, 369-370 (1923); Hagen v. Viney, 124 Fla. 747, 751, 169 So. 391, 392-393 (1936); Vaughn v. Love, 324 Pa. 276, 280, 188 A. 299, 302 (1936). Although research has not revealed a case deciding the issue in every State’s courts, that appears to be because the issue was so well settled that it went unlitigated. See R. Leflar, American Conflicts Law §24, p. 43 (1968) (“The law is so clear on this point that there are few decisions on it”); Note, Developments in the Law — State Court Jurisdiction, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 909, 937-938 (1960). Opinions from the courts of other States announced the rule in dictum. See, e. g., Reed v. Browning, 130 Ind. 575, 577, 30 N. E. 704, 705 (1892); Nathanson v. Spitz, 19 R. I. 70, 72, 31 A. 690, 691 (1895); McLeod v. Connecticut & Passumpsic River R. Co., 58 Vt. 727, 733-734, 6 A. 648, 649, 650 (1886); New Orleans J. & G. N. R. Co. v. Wallace, 50 Miss. 244, 248-249 (1874); Wagner v. Hallack, 3 Colo. 176, 182-183 (1877); Downer v. Shaw, 22 N. H. 277, 281 (1851); Moore v. Smith, 41 Ky. 340, 341 (1842); Adair County Bank v. Forrey, 74 Neb. 811, 815, 105 N. W. 714, 715-716 (1905). Most States, moreover, had statutes or common-law rules that exempted from service of process individuals who were brought into the forum by force or fraud, see, e. g., Wanzer v. Bright, 52 Ill. 35 (1869), or who were there as a party or witness in unrelated judicial proceedings, see, e. g., Burroughs v. Cocke & Willis, 56 Okla. 627, 156 P. 196 (1916); Malloy v. Brewer, 7 S. D. 587, 64 N. W. 1120 (1895). These exceptions obviously rested upon the premise that service of process conferred jurisdiction. See Anderson v. Atkins, 161 Tenn. 137, 140, 29 S. W. 2d 248, 249 (1930). Particularly striking is the fact that, as far as we have been able to determine, not one American case from the period (or, for that matter, not one American case until 1978) held, or even suggested, that in-state personal service on an individual was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. Commentators were also seemingly unanimous on the rule. See, e. g., 1A. Freeman, Law of Judgments 470-471 (1873); 1 H. Black, Law of Judgments 276-277 (1891); W. Alderson, Law of Judicial Writs and Process 225-226 (1895). See also Restatement of Conflict of Laws §§77-78 (1934).
This American jurisdictional practice is, moreover, not merely old; it is continuing. It remains the practice of, not only a substantial number of the States, but as far as we are aware all the States and the Federal Government — if one disregards (as one must for this purpose) the few opinions since 1978 that have erroneously said, on grounds similar to those that petitioner presses here, that this Court’s due process decisions render the practice unconstitutional. See Nehemiah v. Athletics Congress of U. S. A., 765 F. 2d 42, 46-47 (CA3 1985); Schreiber v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 448 F. Supp. 1079, 1088-1091 (Kan. 1978), rev’d on other grounds, 611 F. 2d 790 (CA10 1979); Harold M. Pitman Co. v. Typecraft Software Ltd., 626 F. Supp. 305, 310-314 (ND Ill. 1986); Bershaw v. Sarbacher, 40 Wash. App. 653, 657, 700 P. 2d 347, 349 (1985); Duehring v. Vasquez, 490 So. 2d 667, 671 (La. App. 1986). We do not know of a single state or federal statute, or a single judicial decision resting upon state law, that has abandoned in-state service as a basis of jurisdiction. Many recent cases reaffirm it. See Hutto v. Plagens, 254 Ga. 512, 513, 330 S. E. 2d 341, 342 (1985); Oxmans’ Erwin Meat Co. v. Blacketer, 86 Wis. 2d 683, 273 N. W. 2d 285 (1979); Lockert v. Breedlove, 321 N. C. 66, 361 S. E. 2d 581 (1987); Nutri-West v. Gibson, 764 P. 2d 693 (Wyo. 1988); Klavan v. Klavan, 405 Mass. 1105, 1106, 544 N. E. 2d 863, 864 (1989); Nielsen v. Braland, 264 Minn. 481, 483, 484, 119 N. W. 2d 737, 738 (1963); Read v. Sonat Offshore Drilling, Inc., 515 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Miss. 1987); Cariaga v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 104 Nev. 544, 762 P. 2d 886 (1988); El-Maksoud v. El-Maksoud, 237 N. J. Super. 483, 486-490, 568 A. 2d 140, 142-144 (1989); Carr v. Carr, 180 W. Va. 12-14, 375 S. E. 2d 190, 192 (1988); O’Brien v. Eubanks, 701 P. 2d 614, 616 (Colo. App. 1985); Wolfson v. Wolfson, 455 So. 2d 577, 578 (Fla. App. 1984); In re Marriage of Pridemore, 146 Ill. App. 3d 990, 991-992, 497 N. E. 2d 818, 819-820 (1986); Swarts v. Dean, 13 Kan. App. 2d 228, 766 P. 2d 1291, 1292 (1989).
C
Despite this formidable body of precedent, petitioner contends, in reliance on our decisions applying the International Shoe standard, that in the absence of “continuous and systematic” contacts with the forum, see n. 1, supra, a nonresident defendant can be subjected to judgment only as to matters that arise out of or relate to his contacts with the forum. This argument rests on a thorough misunderstanding of our cases.
The view of most courts in the 19th century was that a court simply could not exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident who had not been personally served with process in the forum. See, e. g., Reber v. Wright, 68 Pa. 471, 476-477 (1871); Sturgis v. Fay, 16 Ind. 429, 431 (1861); Weil v. Lowenthal, 10 Iowa 575, 578 (1860); Freeman, Law of Judgments, supra, at 468-470; see also D’Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165, 176 (1851); Knowles v. Gaslight & Coke Co., 19 Wall. 58, 61 (1874). Pennoyer v. Neff, while renowned for its statement of the principle that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits such an exercise of jurisdiction, in fact set that forth only as dictum and decided the case (which involved a judgment rendered more than two years before the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification) under “well-established principles of public law.” 95 U. S., at 722. Those principles, embodied in the Due Process Clause, required (we said) that when proceedings “involv[e] merely a determination of the personal liability of the defendant, he must be brought within [the court’s] jurisdiction by service of process within the State, or his voluntary appearance.” Id., at 733. We invoked that rule in a series of subsequent cases, as either a matter of due process or a “fundamental principle] of jurisprudence,” Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U. S. 41, 46 (1892). See, e. g., New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy, 241 U. S. 518, 522-523 (1916); Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518, 521 (1895).
Later years, however, saw the weakening of the Pennoyer rule. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, changes in the technology of transportation and communication, and the tremendous growth of interstate business activity, led to an “inevitable relaxation of the strict limits on state jurisdiction” over nonresident individuals and corporations. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 260 (1958) (Black, J., dissenting). States required, for example, that nonresident corporations appoint an in-state agent upon whom process could be served as a condition of transacting business within their borders, see, e. g., St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350 (1882), and provided in-state “substituted service” for nonresident motorists who caused injury in the State and left before personal service could be accomplished, see, e. g., Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160 (1916); Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352 (1927). We initially upheld these laws under the Due Process Clause on grounds that they complied with PennoyePs rigid requirement of either “consent,” see, e. g., Hess v. Pawloski, supra, at 356, or “presence,” see, e. g., Philadelphia & Reading R. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264, 265 (1917). As many observed, however, the consent and presence were purely fictional. See, e. g., 1 J. Beale, Conflict of Laws 360, 384 (1935); Hutchinson v. Chase & Gilbert, Inc., 45 F. 2d 139, 141 (CA2 1930) (L. Hand, J.). Our opinion in International Shoe cast those fictions aside and made explicit the underlying basis of these decisions: Due process does not necessarily require the States to adhere to the unbending territorial limits on jurisdiction set forth in Pennoyer. The validity of assertion of jurisdiction over a nonconsenting defendant who is not present in the forum depends upon whether “the quality and nature of [his] activity” in relation to the forum, 326 U. S., at 319, renders such jurisdiction consistent with “ ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Id., at 316 (citation omitted). Subsequent cases have derived from the International Shoe standard the general rule that a State may dispense with in-forum personal service on nonresident defendants in suits arising out of their activities in the State. See generally Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U. S., at 414-415. As International Shoe suggests, the defendant’s litigation-related “minimum contacts” may take the place of physical presence as the basis for jurisdiction:
“Historically the jurisdiction of courts to render judgment in personam is grounded on their de facto power over the defendant’s person. Hence his presence within the territorial jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally binding on him. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 733. But now that the capias ad respondendum has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice, due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” 326 U. S., at 316 (citations omitted).
Nothing in International Shoe or the cases that have followed it, however, offers support for the very different proposition petitioner seeks to establish today: that a defendant’s presence in the forum is not only unnecessary to validate novel, nontraditional assertions of jurisdiction, but is itself no longer sufficient to establish jurisdiction. That proposition is unfaithful to both elementary logic and the foundations of our due process jurisprudence. The distinction between what is needed to support novel procedures and what is needed to sustain traditional ones is fundamental, as we observed over a century ago:
“[A] process of law, which is not otherwise forbidden, must be taken to be due process of law, if it can show the sanction of settled usage both in England and in this country; but it by no means follows that nothing else can be due process of law. . . . [That which], in substance, has been immemorially the actual law of the land . . . therefore] is due process of law. But to hold that such a characteristic is essential to due process of law, would be to deny every quality of the law but its age, and to render it incapable of progress or improvement. It would be to stamp upon our jurisprudence the unchangeableness attributed to the laws of the Medes and Persians.” Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 528-529 (1884).
The short of the matter is that jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” That standard was developed by analogy to “physical presence,” and it would be perverse to say it could now be turned against that touchstone of jurisdiction.
D
Petitioner’s strongest argument, though we ultimately reject it, relies upon our decision in Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186 (1977). In that case, a Delaware court hearing a shareholder’s derivative suit against a corporation’s directors secured jurisdiction quasi in rem by sequestering the out-of-state defendants’ stock in the company, the situs of which was Delaware under Delaware law. Reasoning that Delaware’s sequestration procedure was simply a mechanism to compel the absent defendants to appear in a suit to determine their personal rights and obligations, we concluded that the normal rules we had developed under International Shoe for jurisdiction over suits against absent defendants should apply — viz., Delaware could not hear the suit because the defendants’ sole contact with the State (ownership of property there) was unrelated to the lawsuit. 433 U. S., at 213-215.
It goes too far to say, as petitioner contends, that Shaffer compels the conclusion that a State lacks jurisdiction over an individual unless the litigation arises out of his activities in the State. Shaffer, like International Shoe, involved jurisdiction over an absent defendant, and it stands for nothing more than the proposition that when the “minimum contact” that is a substitute for physical presence consists of property ownership it must, like other minimum contacts, be related to the litigation. Petitioner wrenches out of its context our statement in Shaffer that “all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny,” 433 U. S., at 212. When read together with the two sentences that preceded it, the meaning of this statement becomes clear:
“The fiction that an assertion of jurisdiction over property is anything but an assertion of jurisdiction over the owner of the property supports an ancient form without substantial modern justification. Its continued acceptance would serve only to allow state-court jurisdiction that is fundamentally unfair to the defendant.
“We therefore conclude that all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny.” Ibid, (emphasis added).
Shaffer was saying, in other words, not that all bases for the assertion of in personam jurisdiction (including, presumably, in-state service) must be treated alike and subjected to the “minimum contacts” analysis of International Shoe; but rather that quasi in rem jurisdiction, that fictional “ancient form,” and in personam jurisdiction, are really one and the same and must be treated alike — leading to the conclusion that quasi in rem jurisdiction, i. e., that form of in personam jurisdiction based upon a “property ownership” contact and by definition unaccompanied by personal, in-state service, must satisfy the litigation-relatedness requirement of International Shoe. The logic of Shaffer’s holding — which places all suits against absent nonresidents on the same constitutional footing, regardless of whether a separate Latin label is attached to one particular basis of contact — does not compel the conclusion that physically present defendants must be treated identically to absent ones. As we have demonstrated at length, our tradition has treated the two classes of defendants quite differently, and it is unreasonable to read Shaffer as casually obliterating that distinction. International Shoe confined its “minimum contacts” requirement to situations in which the defendant “be not present within the territory of the forum,” 326 U. S., at 316, and nothing in Shaffer expands that requirement beyond that.
It is fair to say, however, that while our holding today does not contradict Shaffer, our basic approach to the due process question is different. We have conducted no independent inquiry into the desirability or fairness of the prevailing instate service rule, leaving that judgment to the legislatures that are free to amend it; for our purposes, its validation is its pedigree, as the phrase “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” makes clear. Shaffer did conduct such an independent inquiry, asserting that “‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ can be as readily offended by the perpetuation of ancient forms that are no longer justified as by the adoption of new procedures that are inconsistent with the basic values of our constitutional heritage. ” 433 U. S., at 212. Perhaps that assertion can be sustained when the “perpetuation of ancient forms” is engaged in by only a very small minority of the States. Where, however, as in the present case, a jurisdictional principle is both firmly approved by tradition and still favored, it is impossible to imagine what standard we could appeal to for the judgment that it is “no longer justified.” While in no way receding from or casting doubt upon the holding of Shaffer or any other case, we reaffirm today our time-honored approach, see, e. g., Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U. S. 94, 110-112 (1921); Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S., at 528-529; Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U. S. 272, 276-277 (1856). For new procedures, hitherto unknown, the Due Process clause requires analysis to determine whether “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” have been offended. International Shoe, 326 U. S., at 316. But a doctrine of personal jurisdiction that dates back to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and is still generally observed unquestionably meets that standard.
Ill
A few words in response to Justice Brennan’s opinion concurring in the judgment: It insists that we apply “contemporary notions of due process” to determine the constitutionality of California’s assertion of jurisdiction. Post, at 632. But our analysis today comports with that prescription, at least if we give it the only sense allowed by our precedents. The “contemporary notions of due process” applicable to personal jurisdiction are the enduring “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” established as the test by International Shoe. By its very language, that test is satisfied if a state court adheres to jurisdictional rules that are generally applied and have always been applied in the United States.
But the concurrence’s proposed standard of “contemporary notions of due process” requires more: It measures state-court jurisdiction not only against traditional doctrines in this, country, including, current state-court, practice, but also against each Justice’s, subjective, assessment of what is fair and just. Authority-for that seductive standard is not to be found in any of our personal jurisdiction, cases. It is, indeed, an outright break with the test of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,” which would have to be reformulated “our notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
The subjectivity, and hence inadequacy, of this approach becomes apparent when the concurrence tries to explain why the assertion of jurisdiction in the present case meets its standard of continuing-American-tradition-piws-innatefairness. JUSTICE Brennan lists the “benefits” Mr. Burn-ham derived from the State of California — the fact that, during the few days he was there, “[h]is health and safety [were] guaranteed by the State’s police, fire, and emergency medical services; he [was] free to travel on the State’s roads and waterways; he likely enjoy[ed] the fruits of the State’s economy.” Post, at 637-638. Three days’ worth of these benefits strike us as powerfully inadequate to establish, as an abstract matter, that it is “fair” for California* to’decree the ownership of all Mr. Burnham’s worldly goods acquired during the 10 years of his marriage,, and the custody over his children. We daresay a contractual- exchange swapping-those benefits for that power would! not survive the “unconscionability” provision of the Uniform-Commercial Code. Even less persuasive are the other “fairness” factors alluded to by Justice Brennan. It would create “an asymmetry,” we are told, if Burnham were permitted (as he is) to appear in California courts as a plaintiff, but were not compelled to appear in California courts as defendant; and travel being as easy as it is nowadays, and modern procedural devices being so convenient, it is no great hardship to appear in California courts. Post, at 638-639. The problem with these assertions is that they justify the exercise of jurisdiction over everyone, whether or not he ever comes to California. The only “fairness” elements setting Mr. Burnham apart from the rest of the world are the three days’ “benefits” referred to above — and even those, do not set him apart from many other people who have enjoyed three days in the Golden State (savoring the fruits of its economy, the availability of its roads and police services) but who were fortunate enough not to be served with process while they were there and thus are not (simply by reason of that savoring) subject to the general jurisdiction of California’s courts. See, e. g., Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U. S., at 414-416. In other words, even if one agreed with Justice Brennan’s conception of an equitable bargain, the “benefits” we have been discussing would explain why it is “fair” to assert general jurisdiction over Bur-nham-returned-to-NewJersey-after-service only at the expense of proving that it is also “fair” to assert general jurisdiction over Burnhamreturned-to-New-Jersey-wii/iOMt-service — which we know does not conform with “contemporary notions of due process.”
There is, we must acknowledge, one factor mentioned by Justice Brennan that both relates distinctively to the assertion of jurisdiction on the basis of personal in-state service and is fully.persuasive — namely, the fact that a defendant voluntarily present in a particular State has a “reasonable expectatio[n]” that he is subject to suit there. Post, at 637. By formulating it as a “reasonable expectation” Justice Brennan makes that seem like a “fairness” factor; but in reality, of course, it is just tradition masquerading as “fairness.” The only reason for charging Mr. Burnham with the reasonable expectation of being subject to suit is that the States of the Union assert adjudicatory jurisdiction over the person, and have always asserted adjudicatory jurisdiction over the person, by serving him with process during his temporary physical presence in their territory. That continuing tradition, which anyone entering California should have known about, renders it “fair” for Mr. Burnham, who voluntarily entered California, to be sued there for divorce — at least “fair” in the limited sense that he has no one but himself to blame. Justice Brennan’s long journey is a circular one, leaving him, at the end of the day, in complete reliance upon the very factor he sought to avoid: The existence of a continuing tradition is not enough, fairness also must be considered; fairness exists here because there is a continuing tradition.
While Justice Brennan’s concurrence is unwilling to confess that the Justices of this Court can possibly be bound by a continuing American tradition that a particular procedure is fair, neither is it willing to embrace the logical consequences of that refusal — or even to be clear about what consequences (logical or otherwise) it does embrace. Justice Brennan says that “[f]or these reasons [i. e., because of the reasonableness factors enumerated above], as a rule the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on his voluntary presence in the forum will satisfy the requirements of due process.” Post, at 639. The use of the word “rule” conveys the reassuring feeling that he is establishing a principle of law one can rely upon — but of course he is not. Since Justice Brennan’s only criterion of constitutionality is “fairness,” the phrase “as a rule” represents nothing more than his estimation that, usually, all the elements of “fairness” he discusses in the present case will exist. But what if they do not? Suppose, for example, that a defendant in Mr. Bum-ham’s situation enjoys not three days’ worth of California’s “benefits,” but 15 minutes’ worth. Or suppose we remove one of those “benefits” — “enjoy[ment of] the fruits of the State’s economy” — by positing that Mr. Burnham had not come to California on business, but only to visit his children. Or suppose that Mr. Burnham were demonstrably so impecunious as to be unable to take advantage of the modern means of transportation and communication that Justice Brennan finds so relevant. Or suppose, finally, that the California courts lacked the “variety of procedural devices,” post, at 639, that Justice Brennan says can reduce the burden upon out-of-state litigants. One may also make additional suppositions, relating not to the absence of the factors that Justice Brennan discusses, but to the presence of additional factors bearing upon the ultimate criterion of “fairness.” What if, for example, Mr. Burnham were visiting a sick child? Or a dying child? Cf. Kulko v. Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, 436 U. S. 84, 93 (1978) (finding the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction over an absent parent unreasonable because it would “discourage parents from entering into reasonable visitation agreements”). Since, so far as one can tell, Justice Brennan’s approval of applying the in-state service rule in the present case rests on the presence of all the factors he lists, and on the absence of any others, every different case will present a different litigable issue. Thus, despite the fact that he manages to work the word “rule” into his formulation, Justice Brennan’s approach does not establish a rule of law at all, but only a “totality of the circumstances” test, guaranteeing what traditional territorial rules of jurisdiction were designed precisely to avoid: uncertainty and litigation over the preliminary issue of the forum’s competence. It may be that those evils, necessarily accompanying a freestanding “reasonableness” inquiry, must be accepted at the margins, when we evaluate wowtraditional forms of jurisdiction newly adopted by the States, see, e. g., Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County, 480 U. S. 102, 115 (1987). But that is no reason for injecting them into the core of our American practice, exposing to such a “reasonableness” inquiry the ground of jurisdiction that has hitherto been considered the very baseline of reasonableness, physical presence.
The difference between us and Justice Brennan has nothing to do with whether “further progress [is] to be made” in the “evolution of our legal system.” Post, at 631, n. 3. It has to do with whether changes are to be adopted as progressive by the American people or decreed as progressive by the Justices of this Court. Nothing we say today prevents individual States from limiting or entirely abandoning the instate-service basis of jurisdiction. And nothing prevents an overwhelming majority of them from doing so, with the consequence that the “traditional notions of fairness” that this Court applies may change. But the States have overwhelmingly declined to adopt such limitation or abandonment, evidently not considering it to be progress. The question is whether, armed with no authority other than individual Justices’ perceptions of fairness that conflict with both past and current practice, this Court can compel the States to make such a change on the ground that “due process” requries it. We hold that it cannot.
* * *
Because the Due Process Clause does not prohibit the California courts from exercising jurisdiction over petitioner based on the fact of in-state service of process, the judgment is
Affirmed.
We have said that “[e]ven when the cause of action does not arise out of or relate to the foreign corporation’s activities in the forum State, due process is not offended by a State’s subjecting the corporation to its in personam jurisdiction when there are sufficient contacts between the State and the foreign corporation.” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U. S., at 414. Our only holding supporting that statement, however, involved “regular service of summons upon [the corporation’s] president while he was in [the forum State] acting in that capacity.” See Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U. S. 437, 440 (1952). It may be that whatever special rule exists permitting “continuous and systematic” contacts, id., at 438, to support jurisdiction with respect to matters unrelated to activity in the forum applies only to corporations, which have never fitted comfortably in a jurisdictional regime based primarily upon “de facto power over the defendant’s person.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316 (1945). We express no views on these matters —and, for simplicity’s sake, omit reference to this aspect of “contacts”-based jurisdiction in our discussion.
Justice Brennan’s assertion that some of these eases involved dicta rather than holdings, post, at 636-637, n. 10, is incorrect. In each case, personal service within the State was the exclusive basis for the judgment that jurisdiction existed, and no other factor was relied upon. Nor is it relevant for present purposes that these holdings might instead have been rested on other available grounds.
Given this striking fact, and the unanimity of both cases and commentators in supporting the in-state service rule, one can only marvel at Justice Brennan’s assertion that the rule “was rather weakly implanted in American jurisprudence,” post, at 633-634, and “did not receive wide currency until well after our decision in Pennoyer v. Neff,” post, at 635. I have cited pr e-Pennoyer eases clearly supporting the rule from no less than nine States, ranging from Mississippi to Colorado to New Hampshire, and two highly respected pr e-Pennoyer commentators. (It is, moreover, impossible to believe that the many other cases decided shortly after Pennoyer represented some sort of instant mutation — or, for that matter, that Pennoyer itself was not drawing upon clear contemporary understanding.) Justice Brennan cites neither cases nor commentators from the relevant period to support his thesis (with exceptions I shall discuss presently), and instead relies upon modern secondary sources that do not mention, and were perhaps unaware of, many of the materials I have discussed. The cases cited by Justice Brennan, post, at 634-635, n. 9, do not remotely support his point. The dictum he quotes from Coleman’s Appeal, 75 Pa. 441, 458 (1874), to the effect that “a man shall only be liable to be called on to answer for civil wrongs in the forum of his home, and the tribunal of his vicinage,” was addressing the situation where no personal service in the State had been obtained. This is clear from the court’s earlier statements that “there is no mode of reaching by any process issuing from a court of common law, the person of a non-resident defendant not found within the jurisdiction,” id., at 456, and “[u]pon a summons, unless there is service within the jurisdiction, there can be no judgment for want of appearance against the defendant.” Ibid. Gardner v. Thomas, 14 Johns. *134 (N. Y. 1817), and Molony v. Dows, 8 Abb. Pr. 316 (N. Y. Common Pleas 1859), are irrelevant to the present discussion. Gardner, in which the court declined to adjudicate a tort action between two British subjects for a tort that occurred on the high seas aboard a British vessel, specifically affirmed that jurisdiction did exist, but said that its exercise “must, on principles of policy, often rest in the sound discretion of the Court.” Gardner v. Thomas, supra, at *137-*138. The decision is plainly based, in modern terms, upon the doctrine oí forum non conveniens. Molony did indeed hold that in-state service could not support the adjudication of an action for physical assault by one Californian against another in California (acknowledging that this appeared to contradict an earlier New York case), but it rested that holding upon a doctrine akin to the principle that no State will enforce the penal laws of another — that is, resting upon the injury to the public peace of the other State that such an assault entails, and upon the fact that the damages awarded include penal elements. Molony v. Dows, supra, at 330. The fairness or propriety of exercising jurisidiction over the parties had nothing to do with the decision, as is evident from the court’s acknowledgment that if the Californians were suing one another over a contract dispute jurisdiction would lie, no matter where the contract arose. 8 Abb. Pr., at 328. As for Justice Brennan’s citation of the 1880 commentator John Cleland Wells, post, at 635, n. 9, it suffices to quote what is set forth on the very page cited: “It is held to be a principle of the common law that any non-resident defendant voluntarily coming within the jurisdiction may be served with process, and compelled to answer.” 1 J. Wells, Jurisdiction of Courts 76 (1880).
Shaffer may have involved a unique state procedure in one respect: Justice Stevens noted that Delaware was the only State that treated the place of incorporation as the situs of corporate stock when both owner and custodian were elsewhere. See 433 U. S., at 218 (opinion concurring in judgment).
1 find quite unacceptable as a basis for this Court’s decisions Justice Brennan’s view that “the raison d’etre of various constitutional doctrines designed to protect out-of-staters, such as the Art. IV Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Commerce Clause,” post, at 640, n. 14, entitles this Court to brand as “unfair,” and hence unconstitutional, the refusal of all 50 States “to limit or abandon bases of jurisdiction that have become obsolete,” post, at 639, n. 14. “Due process” (which is the constitutional text at issue here) does not mean that process which shifting majorities of this Court feel to be “due”; but that process which American society — self-interested American society, which expresses its judgments in the laws of self-interested States — has traditionally considered “due.” The notion that the Constitution, through some penumbra emanating from the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Commerce Clause, establishes this Court as a Platonic check upon the society’s greedy adherence to its traditions can only be described as imperious. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the state associated with the respondent. If the respondent is a federal court or federal judge, note the "state" as the United States. The same holds for other federal employees or officials. | What state is associated with the respondent? | [
"Alabama",
"Alaska",
"American Samoa",
"Arizona",
"Arkansas",
"California",
"Colorado",
"Connecticut",
"Delaware",
"District of Columbia",
"Federated States of Micronesia",
"Florida",
"Georgia",
"Guam",
"Hawaii",
"Idaho",
"Illinois",
"Indiana",
"Iowa",
"Kansas",
"Kentucky",
"Louisiana",
"Maine",
"Marshall Islands",
"Maryland",
"Massachusetts",
"Michigan",
"Minnesota",
"Mississippi",
"Missouri",
"Montana",
"Nebraska",
"Nevada",
"New Hampshire",
"New Jersey",
"New Mexico",
"New York",
"North Carolina",
"North Dakota",
"Northern Mariana Islands",
"Ohio",
"Oklahoma",
"Oregon",
"Palau",
"Pennsylvania",
"Puerto Rico",
"Rhode Island",
"South Carolina",
"South Dakota",
"Tennessee",
"Texas",
"Utah",
"Vermont",
"Virgin Islands",
"Virginia",
"Washington",
"West Virginia",
"Wisconsin",
"Wyoming",
"United States",
"Interstate Compact",
"Philippines",
"Indian",
"Dakota"
] | [
5
] | sc |
Terrance WILLIAMS, Petitioner
v.
PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 15-5040.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Feb. 29, 2016.
Decided June 9, 2016.
Stuart B. Lev, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Ronald Eisenberg, Philadelphia, PA, for Respondent.
Leigh M. Skipper, Chief Federal Defender, Stuart B. Lev, Shawn Nolan, Matthew C. Lawry, Timothy P. Kane, Katherine E. Ensler, Federal Community Defender Office, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Ronald Eisenberg, Deputy District Attorney, Hugh J. Burns, Jr., Chief, Appeals Unit, George D. Mosee, Jr., First Assistant District Attorney, R. Seth Williams, District Attorney, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Respondent.
Justice KENNEDYdelivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated the decision of a postconviction court, which had granted relief to a prisoner convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. One of the justices on the State Supreme Court had been the district attorney who gave his official approval to seek the death penalty in the prisoner's case. The justice in question denied the prisoner's motion for recusal and participated in the decision to deny relief. The question presented is whether the justice's denial of the recusal motion and his subsequent judicial participation violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This Court's precedents set forth an objective standard that requires recusal when the likelihood of bias on the part of the judge " 'is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.' " Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 872, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009)(quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975)). Applying this standard, the Court concludes that due process compelled the justice's recusal.
I
Petitioner is Terrance Williams. In 1984, soon after Williams turned 18, he murdered 56-year-old Amos Norwood in Philadelphia. At trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence that Williams and a friend, Marc Draper, had been standing on a street corner when Norwood drove by. Williams and Draper requested a ride home from Norwood, who agreed. Draper then gave Norwood false directions that led him to drive toward a cemetery. Williams and Draper ordered Norwood out of the car and into the cemetery. There, the two men tied Norwood in his own clothes and beat him to death. Testifying for the Commonwealth, Draper suggested that robbery was the motive for the crime. Williams took the stand in his own defense, stating that he was not involved in the crime and did not know the victim.
During the trial, the prosecutor requested permission from her supervisors in the district attorney's office to seek the death penalty against Williams. To support the request, she prepared a memorandum setting forth the details of the crime, information supporting two statutory aggravating factors, and facts in mitigation. After reviewing the memorandum, the then-district attorney of Philadelphia, Ronald Castille, wrote this note at the bottom of the document: "Approved to proceed on the death penalty." App. 426a.
During the penalty phase of the trial, the prosecutor argued that Williams deserved a death sentence because he killed Norwood " 'for no other reason but that a kind man offered him a ride home.' " Brief for Petitioner 7. The jurors found two aggravating circumstances: that the murder was committed during the course of a robbery and that Williams had a significant history of violent felony convictions. That criminal history included a previous conviction for a murder he had committed at age 17. The jury found no mitigating circumstances and sentenced Williams to death. Over a period of 26 years, Williams's conviction and sentence were upheld on direct appeal, state postconviction review, and federal habeas review.
In 2012, Williams filed a successive petition pursuant to Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9541 et seq. (2007). The petition was based on new information from Draper, who until then had refused to speak with Williams's attorneys. Draper told Williams's counsel that he had informed the Commonwealth before trial that Williams had been in a sexual relationship with Norwood and that the relationship was the real motive for Norwood's murder. According to Draper, the Commonwealth had instructed him to give false testimony that Williams killed Norwood to rob him. Draper also admitted he had received an undisclosed benefit in exchange for his testimony: the trial prosecutor had promised to write a letter to the state parole board on his behalf. At trial, the prosecutor had elicited testimony from Draper indicating that his only agreement with the prosecution was to plead guilty in exchange for truthful testimony. No mention was made of the additional promise to write the parole board.
The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, identified in the proceedings below as the PCRA court, held an evidentiary hearing on Williams's claims. Williams alleged in his petition that the prosecutor had procured false testimony from Draper and suppressed evidence regarding Norwood's sexual relationship with Williams. At the hearing, both Draper and the trial prosecutor testified regarding these allegations. The PCRA court ordered the district attorney's office to produce the previously undisclosed files of the prosecutor and police. These documents included the trial prosecutor's sentencing memorandum, bearing then-District Attorney Castille's authorization to pursue the death penalty. Based on the Commonwealth's files and the evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court found that the trial prosecutor had suppressed material, exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and engaged in "prosecutorial gamesmanship." App. 168a. The court stayed Williams's execution and ordered a new sentencing hearing.
Seeking to vacate the stay of execution, the Commonwealth submitted an emergency application to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. By this time, almost three decades had passed since Williams's prosecution. Castille had been elected to a seat on the State Supreme Court and was serving as its chief justice. Williams filed a response to the Commonwealth's application. The disclosure of the trial prosecutor's sentencing memorandum in the PCRA proceedings had alerted Williams to Chief Justice Castille's involvement in the decision to seek a death sentence in his case. For this reason, Williams also filed a motion asking Chief Justice Castille to recuse himself or, if he declined to do so, to refer the recusal motion to the full court for decision. The Commonwealth opposed Williams's recusal motion. Without explanation, Chief Justice Castille denied the motion for recusal and the request for its referral. Two days later, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the application to vacate the stay and ordered full briefing on the issues raised in the appeal. The State Supreme Court then vacated the PCRA court's order granting penalty-phase relief and reinstated Williams's death sentence. Chief Justice Castille and Justices Baer and Stevens joined the majority opinion written by Justice Eakin. Justices Saylor and Todd concurred in the result without issuing a separate opinion. See 629 Pa. 533, ----, 105 A.3d 1234, 1245 (2014).
Chief Justice Castille authored a concurrence. He lamented that the PCRA court had "lost sight of its role as a neutral judicial officer" and had stayed Williams's execution "for no valid reason." Id., at ----, 105 A.3d, at 1245. "[B]efore condemning officers of the court," the chief justice stated, "the tribunal should be aware of the substantive status of Brady law," which he believed the PCRA court had misapplied. Id., at ----, 105 A.3d, at 1246. In addition, Chief Justice Castille denounced what he perceived as the "obstructionist anti-death penalty agenda" of Williams's attorneys from the Federal Community Defender Office. Ibid. PCRA courts "throughout Pennsylvania need to be vigilant and circumspect when it comes to the activities of this particular advocacy group," he wrote, lest Defender Office lawyers turn postconviction proceedings "into a circus where [they] are the ringmasters, with their parrots and puppets as a sideshow." Id., at ----, 105 A.3d, at 1247.
Two weeks after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Williams's case, Chief Justice Castille retired from the bench. This Court granted Williams's petition for certiorari. 576 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 28, 192 L.Ed.2d 999 (2015).
II
A
Williams contends that Chief Justice Castille's decision as district attorney to seek a death sentence against him barred the chief justice from later adjudicating Williams's petition to overturn that sentence. Chief Justice Castille, Williams argues, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by acting as both accuser and judge in his case.
The Court's due process precedents do not set forth a specific test governing recusal when, as here, a judge had prior involvement in a case as a prosecutor. For the reasons explained below, however, the principles on which these precedents rest dictate the rule that must control in the circumstances here. The Court now holds that under the Due Process Clause there is an impermissible risk of actual bias when a judge earlier had significant, personal involvement as a prosecutor in a critical decision regarding the defendant's case.
Due process guarantees "an absence of actual bias" on the part of a judge. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955). Bias is easy to attribute to others and difficult to discern in oneself. To establish an enforceable and workable framework, the Court's precedents apply an objective standard that, in the usual case, avoids having to determine whether actual bias is present. The Court asks not whether a judge harbors an actual, subjective bias, but instead whether, as an objective matter, "the average judge in his position is 'likely' to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional 'potential for bias.' " Caperton, 556 U.S., at 881, 129 S.Ct. 2252. Of particular relevance to the instant case, the Court has determined that an unconstitutional potential for bias exists when the same person serves as both accuser and adjudicator in a case. See Murchison, 349 U.S., at 136-137, 75 S.Ct. 623. This objective risk of bias is reflected in the due process maxim that "no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome." Id ., at 136, 75 S.Ct. 623.
The due process guarantee that "no man can be a judge in his own case" would have little substance if it did not disqualify a former prosecutor from sitting in judgment of a prosecution in which he or she had made a critical decision. This conclusion follows from the Court's analysis in In re Murchison . That case involved a "one-man judge-grand jury" proceeding, conducted pursuant to state law, in which the judge called witnesses to testify about suspected crimes. Id ., at 134. During the course of the examinations, the judge became convinced that two witnesses were obstructing the proceeding. He charged one witness with perjury and then, a few weeks later, tried and convicted him in open court. The judge charged the other witness with contempt and, a few days later, tried and convicted him as well. This Court overturned the convictions on the ground that the judge's dual position as accuser and decisionmaker in the contempt trials violated due process: "Having been a part of [the accusatory] process a judge cannot be, in the very nature of things, wholly disinterested in the conviction or acquittal of those accused." Id ., at 137.
No attorney is more integral to the accusatory process than a prosecutor who participates in a major adversary decision. When a judge has served as an advocate for the State in the very case the court is now asked to adjudicate, a serious question arises as to whether the judge, even with the most diligent effort, could set aside any personal interest in the outcome. There is, furthermore, a risk that the judge "would be so psychologically wedded" to his or her previous position as a prosecutor that the judge "would consciously or unconsciously avoid the appearance of having erred or changed position." Withrow, 421 U.S., at 57, 95 S.Ct. 1456. In addition, the judge's "own personal knowledge and impression" of the case, acquired through his or her role in the prosecution, may carry far more weight with the judge than the parties' arguments to the court. Murchison, supra, at 138, 75 S.Ct. 623; see also Caperton, supra, at 881, 129 S.Ct. 2252.
Pennsylvania argues that Murchison does not lead to the rule that due process requires disqualification of a judge who, in an earlier role as a prosecutor, had significant involvement in making a critical decision in the case. The facts of Murchison, it should be acknowledged, differ in many respects from a case like this one. In Murchison, over the course of several weeks, a single official (the so-called judge-grand jury) conducted an investigation into suspected crimes; made the decision to charge witnesses for obstruction of that investigation; heard evidence on the charges he had lodged; issued judgments of conviction; and imposed sentence. See 349 U.S., at 135, 75 S.Ct. 623(petitioners objected to "trial before the judge who was at the same time the complainant, indicter and prosecutor"). By contrast, a judge who had an earlier involvement in a prosecution might have been just one of several prosecutors working on the case at each stage of the proceedings; the prosecutor's immediate role might have been limited to a particular aspect of the prosecution; and decades might have passed before the former prosecutor, now a judge, is called upon to adjudicate a claim in the case.
These factual differences notwithstanding, the constitutional principles explained in Murchison are fully applicable where a judge had a direct, personal role in the defendant's prosecution. The involvement of other actors and the passage of time are consequences of a complex criminal justice system, in which a single case may be litigated through multiple proceedings taking place over a period of years. This context only heightens the need for objective rules preventing the operation of bias that otherwise might be obscured. Within a large, impersonal system, an individual prosecutor might still have an influence that, while not so visible as the one-man grand jury in Murchison, is nevertheless significant. A prosecutor may bear responsibility for any number of critical decisions, including what charges to bring, whether to extend a plea bargain, and which witnesses to call. Even if decades intervene before the former prosecutor revisits the matter as a jurist, the case may implicate the effects and continuing force of his or her original decision. In these circumstances, there remains a serious risk that a judge would be influenced by an improper, if inadvertent, motive to validate and preserve the result obtained through the adversary process. The involvement of multiple actors and the passage of time do not relieve the former prosecutor of the duty to withdraw in order to ensure the neutrality of the judicial process in determining the consequences that his or her own earlier, critical decision may have set in motion.
B
This leads to the question whether Chief Justice Castille's authorization to seek the death penalty against Williams amounts to significant, personal involvement in a critical trial decision. The Court now concludes that it was a significant, personal involvement; and, as a result, Chief Justice Castille's failure to recuse from Williams's case presented an unconstitutional risk of bias.
As an initial matter, there can be no doubt that the decision to pursue the death penalty is a critical choice in the adversary process. Indeed, after a defendant is charged with a death-eligible crime, whether to ask a jury to end the defendant's life is one of the most serious discretionary decisions a prosecutor can be called upon to make.
Nor is there any doubt that Chief Justice Castille had a significant role in this decision. Without his express authorization, the Commonwealth would not have been able to pursue a death sentence against Williams. The importance of this decision and the profound consequences it carries make it evident that a responsible prosecutor would deem it to be a most significant exercise of his or her official discretion and professional judgment.
Pennsylvania nonetheless contends that Chief Justice Castille in fact did not have significant involvement in the decision to seek a death sentence against Williams. The chief justice, the Commonwealth points out, was the head of a large district attorney's office in a city that saw many capital murder trials. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36. According to Pennsylvania, his approval of the trial prosecutor's request to pursue capital punishment in Williams's case amounted to a brief administrative act limited to "the time it takes to read a one-and-a-half-page memo." Ibid. In this Court's view, that characterization cannot be credited. The Court will not assume that then-District Attorney Castille treated so major a decision as a perfunctory task requiring little time, judgment, or reflection on his part.
Chief Justice Castille's own comments while running for judicial office refute the Commonwealth's claim that he played a mere ministerial role in capital sentencing decisions. During the chief justice's election campaign, multiple news outlets reported his statement that he "sent 45 people to death rows" as district attorney. Seelye, Castille Keeps His Cool in Court Run, Philadelphia Inquirer, Apr. 30, 1993, p. B1; see also, e.g., Brennan, State Voters Must Choose Next Supreme Court Member, Legal Intelligencer, Oct. 28, 1993, pp. 1, 12. Chief Justice Castille's willingness to take personal responsibility for the death sentences obtained during his tenure as district attorney indicate that, in his own view, he played a meaningful role in those sentencing decisions and considered his involvement to be an important duty of his office.
Although not necessary to the disposition of this case, the PCRA court's ruling underscores the risk of permitting a former prosecutor to be a judge in what had been his or her own case. The PCRA court determined that the trial prosecutor-Chief Justice Castille's former subordinate in the district attorney's office-had engaged in multiple, intentional Brady violations during Williams's prosecution. App. 131-145, 150-154. While there is no indication that Chief Justice Castille was aware of the alleged prosecutorial misconduct, it would be difficult for a judge in his position not to view the PCRA court's findings as a criticism of his former office and, to some extent, of his own leadership and supervision as district attorney.
The potential conflict of interest posed by the PCRA court's findings illustrates the utility of statutes and professional codes of conduct that "provide more protection than due process requires." Caperton, 556 U.S., at 890, 129 S.Ct. 2252. It is important to note that due process "demarks only the outer boundaries of judicial disqualifications." Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 828, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed.2d 823 (1986). Most questions of recusal are addressed by more stringent and detailed ethical rules, which in many jurisdictions already require disqualification under the circumstances of this case. See Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 5, 11-14; see also ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 2.11(A)(1), (A)(6)(b) (2011) (no judge may participate "in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," including where the judge "served in governmental employment, and in such capacity participated personally and substantially as a lawyer or public official concerning the proceeding"); ABA Center for Professional Responsibility Policy Implementation Comm., Comparison of ABA Model Judicial Code and State Variations (Dec. 14, 2015), available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/2_11.authcheckdam.pdf (as last visited June 7, 2016) (28 States have adopted language similar to ABA Model Judicial Code Rule 2.11); 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3)(recusal required where judge "has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding"). At the time Williams filed his recusal motion with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for example, Pennsylvania's Code of Judicial Conduct disqualified judges from any proceeding in which "they served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom they previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter...." Pa.Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3C (1974, as amended). The fact that most jurisdictions have these rules in place suggests that today's decision will not occasion a significant change in recusal practice.
Chief Justice Castille's significant, personal involvement in a critical decision in Williams's case gave rise to an unacceptable risk of actual bias. This risk so endangered the appearance of neutrality that his participation in the case "must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented." Withrow, 421 U.S., at 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456.
III
Having determined that Chief Justice Castille's participation violated due process, the Court must resolve whether Williams is entitled to relief. In past cases, the Court has not had to decide the question whether a due process violation arising from a jurist's failure to recuse amounts to harmless error if the jurist is on a multimember court and the jurist's vote was not decisive. See Lavoie, supra, at 827-828, 106 S.Ct. 1580(addressing "the question whether a decision of a multimember tribunal must be vacated because of the participation of one member who had an interest in the outcome of the case," where that member's vote was outcome determinative). For the reasons discussed below, the Court holds that an unconstitutional failure to recuse constitutes structural error even if the judge in question did not cast a deciding vote.
The Court has little trouble concluding that a due process violation arising from the participation of an interested judge is a defect "not amenable" to harmless-error review, regardless of whether the judge's vote was dispositive. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 141, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009)(emphasis deleted). The deliberations of an appellate panel, as a general rule, are confidential. As a result, it is neither possible nor productive to inquire whether the jurist in question might have influenced the views of his or her colleagues during the decisionmaking process. Indeed, one purpose of judicial confidentiality is to assure jurists that they can reexamine old ideas and suggest new ones, while both seeking to persuade and being open to persuasion by their colleagues. As Justice Brennan wrote in his Lavoie concurrence,
"The description of an opinion as being 'for the court' connotes more than merely that the opinion has been joined by a majority of the participating judges. It reflects the fact that these judges have exchanged ideas and arguments in deciding the case. It reflects the collective process of deliberation which shapes the court's perceptions of which issues must be addressed and, more importantly, how they must be addressed. And, while the influence of any single participant in this process can never be measured with precision, experience teaches us that each member's involvement plays a part in shaping the court's ultimate disposition." 475 U.S., at 831, 106 S.Ct. 1580.
These considerations illustrate, moreover, that it does not matter whether the disqualified judge's vote was necessary to the disposition of the case. The fact that the interested judge's vote was not dispositive may mean only that the judge was successful in persuading most members of the court to accept his or her position. That outcome does not lessen the unfairness to the affected party. See id ., at 831-832, 106 S.Ct. 1580(Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment).
A multimember court must not have its guarantee of neutrality undermined, for the appearance of bias demeans the reputation and integrity not just of one jurist, but of the larger institution of which he or she is a part. An insistence on the appearance of neutrality is not some artificial attempt to mask imperfection in the judicial process, but rather an essential means of ensuring the reality of a fair adjudication. Both the appearance and reality of impartial justice are necessary to the public legitimacy of judicial pronouncements and thus to the rule of law itself. When the objective risk of actual bias on the part of a judge rises to an unconstitutional level, the failure to recuse cannot be deemed harmless.
The Commonwealth points out that ordering a rehearing before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may not provide complete relief to Williams because judges who were exposed to a disqualified judge may still be influenced by their colleague's views when they rehear the case. Brief for Respondent 51, 62. An inability to guarantee complete relief for a constitutional violation, however, does not justify withholding a remedy altogether. Allowing an appellate panel to reconsider a case without the participation of the interested member will permit judges to probe lines of analysis or engage in discussions they may have felt constrained to avoid in their first deliberations.
Chief Justice Castille's participation in Williams's case was an error that affected the State Supreme Court's whole adjudicatory framework below. Williams must be granted an opportunity to present his claims to a court unburdened by any "possible temptation ... not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused." Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927).
* * *
Where a judge has had an earlier significant, personal involvement as a prosecutor in a critical decision in the defendant's case, the risk of actual bias in the judicial proceeding rises to an unconstitutional level. Due process entitles Terrance Williams to "a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance" that no member of the court is "predisposed to find against him." Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980).
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Chief Justice ROBERTS, with whom Justice ALITOjoins, dissenting.
In 1986, Ronald Castille, then District Attorney of Philadelphia, authorized a prosecutor in his office to seek the death penalty against Terrance Williams. Almost 30 years later, as Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, he participated in deciding whether Williams's fifth habeas petition-which raised a claim unconnected to the prosecution's decision to seek the death penalty-could be heard on the merits or was instead untimely. This Court now holds that because Chief Justice Castille made a "critical" decision as a prosecutor in Williams's case, there is a risk that he "would be so psychologically wedded" to his previous decision that it would violate the Due Process Clause for him to decide the distinct issues raised in the habeas petition. Ante, at 1905 - 1906 (internal quotation marks omitted). According to the Court, that conclusion follows from the maxim that "no man can be a judge in his own case." Ante, at 1905 - 1906 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The majority opinion rests on proverb rather than precedent. This Court has held that there is "a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators." Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975). To overcome that presumption, the majority relies on In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955). We concluded there that the Due Process Clause is violated when a judge adjudicates the same question-based on the same facts-that he had already considered as a grand juror in the same case. Here, however, Williams does not allege that Chief Justice Castille had any previous knowledge of the contested facts at issue in the habeas petition, or that he had previously made any decision on the questions raised by that petition. I would accordingly hold that the Due Process Clause did not require Chief Justice Castille's recusal.
I
In 1986, petitioner Terrance Williams stood trial for the murder of Amos Norwood. Prosecutors believed that Williams and his friend Marc Draper had asked Norwood for a ride, directed him to a cemetery, and then beat him to death with a tire iron after robbing him. Andrea Foulkes, the Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney prosecuting the case, prepared a one-and-a-half page memo for her superiors-Homicide Unit Chief Mark Gottlieb and District Attorney Ronald Castille-"request[ing] that we actively seek the death penalty." App. 424a. The memo briefly described the facts of the case and Williams's prior felonies, including a previous murder conviction. Gottlieb read the memo and then passed it to Castille with a note recommending the death penalty. Id., at 426a. Castille wrote at the bottom of the memo, "Approved to proceed on the death penalty," and signed his name. Ibid.
At trial, Williams testified that he had never met Norwood and that someone else must have murdered him. After hearing extensive evidence linking Williams to the crime, the jury convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death. 524 Pa. 218, 227, 570 A.2d 75, 79-80 (1990).
In 1995, Williams filed a habeas petition in Pennsylvania state court, alleging that his trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence of his childhood sexual abuse, among other claims. At a hearing related to that petition, Williams acknowledged that he knew Norwood and claimed that Norwood had sexually abused him. 629 Pa. 533, ----, 105 A.3d 1234, 1240 (2014). The petition was denied. Williams filed two more state habeas petitions, which were both dismissed as untimely, and a federal habeas petition, which was also denied. See Williams v. Beard, 637 F.3d 195, 238 (C.A.3 2011).
This case arises out of Williams's fifth habeas petition, which he filed in state court in 2012. In that petition, Williams argued that he was entitled to a new sentencing proceeding because the prosecution at trial had failed to turn over certain evidence suggesting that "Norwood was sexually involved with boys around [Williams's] age at the time of his murder." Crim. No. CP-51-CR-0823621-1984 (Phila. Ct. Common Pleas, Nov. 27, 2012), App. 80a.
It is undisputed that Williams's fifth habeas petition is untimely under Pennsylvania law. In order to overcome that time bar, Pennsylvania law required Williams to show that "(1) the failure to previously raise [his] claim was the result of interference by government officials and (2) the information on which he relies could not have been obtained earlier with the exercise of due diligence." --- Pa., at ----, 105 A.3d, at 1240. The state habeas court held that Williams met that burden because "the government withheld multiple statements from [Williams's] trial counsel, all of which strengthened the inference that Amos Norwood was sexually inappropriate with a number of teenage boys," and Williams was unable to access those statements until an evidentiary proceeding ordered by the court. App. 95a.
The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Williams filed a motion requesting that Chief Justice Castille recuse himself on the ground that he had "personally authorized his Office to seek the death penalty" nearly 30 years earlier. Id., at 181a (emphasis deleted). Chief Justice Castille summarily denied the recusal motion, and the six-member Pennsylvania Supreme Court proceeded to hear the case. The court unanimously reinstated Williams's sentence.
According to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Williams failed to make the threshold showing necessary to overcome the time bar because there was "abundant evidence" that Williams "knew of Norwood's homosexuality and conduct with teenage boys well before trial, sufficient to present [Norwood] as unsympathetic before the jury." --- Pa., at ----, 105 A.3d, at 1241. The court pointed out that Williams was, of course, personally aware of Norwood's abuse and could have raised the issue at trial, but instead chose to disclaim having ever met Norwood. The court also noted that Williams had raised similar claims of abuse in his first state habeas proceeding. Ibid. Chief Justice Castille concurred separately, criticizing the lower court for failing to dismiss Williams's petition as "time-barred and frivolous." Id., at ----, 105 A.3d, at 1245.
II
A
In the context of a criminal proceeding, the Due Process Clause requires States to adopt those practices that are fundamental to principles of liberty and justice, and which inhere "in the very idea of free government" and are "the inalienable right of a citizen of such a government." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 106, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97 (1908). A fair trial and appeal is one such right. See Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236, 62 S.Ct. 280, 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941); Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 825, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed.2d 823 (1986). In ensuring that right, "it is normally within the power of the State to regulate procedures under which its laws are carried out," unless a procedure "offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." Id., at 821, 106 S.Ct. 1580(internal quotation marks omitted).
It is clear that a judge with "a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest" in a case may not preside over that case. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927). We have also held that a judge may not oversee a criminal contempt proceeding where the judge has previously served as grand juror in the same case, or where the party charged with contempt has conducted "an insulting attack upon the integrity of the judge carrying such potential for bias as to require disqualification." Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 465-466, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 L.Ed.2d 532 (1971)(internal quotation marks omitted); see Murchison, 349 U.S., at 139, 75 S.Ct. 623.
Prior to this Court's decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009), we had declined to require judicial recusal under the Due Process Clause beyond those defined situations. In Caperton, however, the Court adopted a new standard that requires recusal "when the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable." Id., at 872, 129 S.Ct. 2252(internal quotation marks omitted). The Court framed the inquiry as "whether, under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness, the interest poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented." Id., at 883-884, 129 S.Ct. 2252(internal quotation marks omitted).
B
According to the majority, the Due Process Clause required Chief Justice Castille's recusal because he had "significant, personal involvement in a critical trial decision" in Williams's case. Ante, at 1907. Otherwise, the majority explains, there is "an unacceptable risk of actual bias." Ante, at 1908. In the majority's view, "[t]his conclusion follows from the Court's analysis in In re Murchison ." Ante, at 1906. But Murchison does not support the majority's new rule-far from it.
Murchison involved a peculiar Michigan law that authorized the same person to sit as both judge and "one-man grand jury" in the same case. 349 U.S., at 133, 75 S.Ct. 623(internal quotation marks omitted). Pursuant to that law, a Michigan judge-serving as grand jury-heard testimony from two witnesses in a corruption case. The testimony "persuaded" the judge that one of the witnesses "had committed perjury"; the second witness refused to answer questions. Id., at 134-135, 75 S.Ct. 623. The judge accordingly charged the witnesses with criminal contempt, presided over the trial, and convicted them. Ibid. We reversed, holding that the trial had violated the Due Process Clause. Id., at 139, 75 S.Ct. 623.
The Court today, acknowledging that Murchison "differ[s] in many respects from a case like this one," ante, at 1906, earns full marks for understatement. The Court in fact fails to recognize the differences that are critical.
First, Murchison found a due process violation because the judge (sitting as grand jury) accused the witnesses of contempt, and then (sitting as judge) presided over their trial on that charge. As a result, the judge had made up his mind about the only issue in the case before the trial had even begun. We held that such prejudgment violated the Due Process Clause. 349 U.S., at 137, 75 S.Ct. 623.
Second, Murchison expressed concern that the judge's recollection of the testimony he had heard as grand juror was "likely to weigh far more heavily with him than any testimony given" at trial. Id., at 138, 75 S.Ct. 623. For that reason, the Court found that the judge was at risk of calling "on his own personal knowledge and impression of what had occurred in the grand jury room," rather than the evidence presented to him by the parties. Ibid.
Neither of those due process concerns is present here. Chief Justice Castille was involved in the decision to seek the death penalty, and perhaps it would be reasonable under Murchison to require him to recuse himself from any challenge casting doubt on that recommendation. But that is not this case.
This case is about whether Williams may overcome the procedural bar on filing an untimely habeas petition, which required him to show that the government interfered with his ability to raise his habeas claim, and that "the information on which he relies could not have been obtained earlier with the exercise of due diligence." --- Pa., at ----, 105 A.3d, at 1240. Even if Williams were to overcome the timeliness bar, moreover, the only claim he sought to raise on the merits was that the prosecution had failed to turn over certain evidence at trial. The problem in Murchison was that the judge, having been "part of the accusatory process" regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendants, could not then be "wholly disinterested" when called upon to decide that very same issue. 349 U.S., at 137, 75 S.Ct. 623. In this case, in contrast, neither the procedural question nor Williams's merits claim in any way concerns the pretrial decision to seek the death penalty.
It is abundantly clear that, unlike in Murchison, Chief Justice Castille had not made up his mind about either the contested evidence or the legal issues under review in Williams's fifth habeas petition. How could he have? Neither the contested evidence nor the legal issues were ever before him as prosecutor. The one-and-a-half page memo prepared by Assistant District Attorney Foulkes in 1986 did not discuss the evidence that Williams claims was withheld by the prosecution at trial. It also did not discuss Williams's allegation that Norwood sexually abused young men. It certainly did not discuss whether Williams could have obtained that evidence of abuse earlier through the exercise of due diligence.
Williams does not assert that Chief Justice Castille had any prior knowledge of the alleged failure of the prosecution to turn over such evidence, and he does not argue that Chief Justice Castille had previously made any decision with respect to that evidence in his role as prosecutor. Even assuming that Chief Justice Castille remembered the contents of the memo almost 30 years later-which is doubtful-the memo could not have given Chief Justice Castille any special "impression" of facts or issues not raised in that memo. Id., at 138, 75 S.Ct. 623.
The majority attempts to justify its rule based on the "risk" that a judge "would be so psychologically wedded to his or her previous position as a prosecutor that the judge would consciously or unconsciously avoid the appearance of having erred or changed position." Ante, at 1906 (internal quotation marks omitted). But as a matter of simple logic, nothing about how Chief Justice Castille might rule on Williams's fifth habeas petition would suggest that the judge had erred or changed his position on the distinct question whether to seek the death penalty prior to trial. In sum, there was not such an "objective risk of actual bias," ante, at 1909, that it was fundamentally unfair for Chief Justice Castille to participate in the decision of an issue having nothing to do with his prior participation in the case.
* * *
The Due Process Clause did not prohibit Chief Justice Castille from hearing Williams's case. That does not mean, however, that it was appropriate for him to do so. Williams cites a number of state court decisions and ethics opinions that prohibit a prosecutor from later serving as judge in a case that he has prosecuted. Because the Due Process Clause does not mandate recusal in cases such as this, it is up to state authorities-not this Court-to determine whether recusal should be required.
I would affirm the judgment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and respectfully dissent from the Court's contrary conclusion. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. | What is the issue area of the decision? | [
"Criminal Procedure",
"Civil Rights",
"First Amendment",
"Due Process",
"Privacy",
"Attorneys",
"Unions",
"Economic Activity",
"Judicial Power",
"Federalism",
"Interstate Relations",
"Federal Taxation",
"Miscellaneous",
"Private Action"
] | [
3
] | sc |
HARRIS v. SOUTH CAROLINA.
No. 76.
Argued November 16, 1948.
Decided June 27, 1949.
Julian B. Salley, Jr. and Leonard A. Williamson argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
B. D. Carter argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John M. Daniel, Attorney General of South Carolina.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which
Mr. Justice Murphy and Mr. Justice Rutledge join.
On Sunday morning, April 28, 1946, Edward L. Bennett and his wife were killed in their store in Aiken County, South Carolina. Bennett’s last words were, “A big negro shot me and robbed me.” Petitioner, Harris, age twenty-five, a slightly built Negro, was subsequently indicted in the Court of General Sessions for Aiken County and found guilty of the murder of the Bennetts. The jury’s verdict required imposition of the death sentence. The Supreme Court of South Carolina denied the claim that a confession introduced at the trial was obtained under circumstances which precluded its admission under the Due Process Clause and sustained the conviction, 212 S. C. 124, 46 S. E. 2d 682, by a 3-2 vote, two judges dissenting on the ground that the facts show that the confession “was not freely and voluntarily made.” We brought the case here to consider the validity of this claim. 334 U. S. 837.
When the disputed testimony is resolved in favor of the State, the following facts emerge:
The police of Aiken County spent two and a half months in fruitless investigation of the murders. Many suspects had been held for interrogation and then released. Suspicion was finally directed toward petitioner by reports that he possessed a pistol and had left for Nashville, Tennessee, soon after the murders. The Sheriff of Aiken County then obtained a warrant, ostensibly for the purpose of arresting petitioner for the theft of his aunt’s pistol but actually to secure his return from Nashville. He was taken into custody there on Friday, July 12, 1946. No warrant was read to him and he was not informed of the charge against him. He was brought back to Aiken County and lodged in its jail on Sunday afternoon at about four o’clock. He first learned that he was suspected of the murder of Bennett on Monday afternoon. He denied the accusation. At that time he was briefly interrogated by the sheriff and the jailer.
On Monday night questioning began in earnest. At least five officers worked in relays, relieving each other from time to time to permit respite from the stifling heat of the cubicle in which the interrogation was conducted. Throughout the evening petitioner denied that he had killed the Bennetts. On Tuesday the questioning continued under the same conditions from 1:30 in the afternoon until past one the following morning with only an hour’s interval at 5:30. On Wednesday afternoon the Chief of the State Constabulary, with half a dozen of his men, questioned petitioner for about an hour, and the local authorities carried on the interrogation for three and a half hours longer. At 6:30 that evening the examination resumed. Petitioner continued to deny implication in the killings. The sheriff then threatened to arrest petitioner’s mother for handling stolen property. Petitioner replied, “Don’t get my mother mixed up in it and I will tell you the truth.” Petitioner then stated in substance what appears in the confession introduced at the trial. The session ended at midnight.
Petitioner was not informed of his rights under South Carolina law, such as the right to secure a lawyer, the right to request a preliminary hearing, or the right to remain silent. No preliminary hearing was ever given and his confession does not even contain the usual statement that he was told that what he said might be used against him. During the whole period of interrogation he was denied the benefit of consultation with family and friends and was surrounded by as many as a dozen members of a dominant group in positions of authority. It is relevant to note that Harris was an illiterate.
The trial judge in his charge told the jury that without the confession there was no evidence which would support a conviction and instructed them that they could consider the confession only if they found it to have been “voluntary.” Upon appeal, the highest court of the State made a conscientious effort to measure the circumstances under which petitioner’s confession was made against the circumstances surrounding confessions which we have held to be the product of undue pressure. It concluded that this confession was not so tainted. We are constrained to disagree. The systematic persistence of interrogation, the length of the periods of questioning, the failure to advise the petitioner of his rights, the absence of friends or disinterested persons, and the character of the defendant constitute a complex of circumstances which invokes the same considerations which compelled our decisions in Watts v. Indiana, ante, p. 49, and Turner v. Pennsylvania, ante, p. 62. The judgment is accordingly
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the judgment on the authority of Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227; Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143.
On the record before us and in view of the consideration given to the evidence by the state courts and the conclusion reached, The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Burton believe that the judgment should be affirmed.
[See ante, p. 57, for opinion of Mr. Justice Jackson, concurring in the result in No. 610, Watts v. Indiana, ante, p. 49, and dissenting in this case and in No. 107, Turner v. Pennsylvania, ante, p. 62.] | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether the court opinion mentions that one or more of the members of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed dissented. Focus on whether there exists any statement to this effect in the opinion, for example "divided," "dissented," "disagreed," "split.". A reference, without more, to the "majority" or "plurality" does not necessarily evidence dissent (the other judges may have concurred). If a case arose on habeas corpus, indicate dissent if either the last federal court or the last state court to review the case contained one. If the highest court with jurisdiction to hear the case declines to do so by a divided vote, indicate dissent. If the lower court denies an en banc petition by a divided vote and the Supreme Court discusses same, indicate dissent. | Does the court opinion mention that one or more of the members of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed dissented? | [
"Yes",
"No"
] | [
0
] | sc |
TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING, KENTUCKY, INC. v. WILLIAMS
No. 00-1089.
Argued November 7, 2001
Decided January 8, 2002
O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
John G. Roberts, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Jeffrey A. Savarise, John A. West, and Katherine A. Hessenbruch.
Barbara B. McDowell argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in support of petitioner. On the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Acting Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, Deputy Solicitor General Clement, Malcolm L. Stewart, Marleigh D. Dover, and Charles W. Scarborough.
Robert Leslie Rosenbaum argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al. by Evan M. Tager and Miriam R. Nemetz; for the Equal Employment Advisory Council et al. by Ann Elizabeth Reesman, Katherine Y. K. Cheung, Jan S. Amundson, and Quentin Riegel; and for Levi Strauss & Co. by John C. Burgin, Jr.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Jonathan P. Hiatt, Michael H. Gottesman, and Laurence Gold; for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America by Jeffrey Robert White; for the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law et al. by John Townsend Rich; for the National Council on Disability by Arlene Mayerson and Nancy L. Perkins; and for the National Employment Lawyers Association by Noah D. Lebowitz and Paula A. Brantner.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. S28,42 U. S. C. § 12101 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V), a physical impairment that “substantially limits one or more . . . major life activities” is a “disability.” 42 U. S. C. § 12102(2)(A) (1994 ed.). Respondent, claiming to be disabled because of her carpal tunnel syndrome and other related impairments, sued petitioner, her former employer, for failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation as required by the ADA. See § 12112(b)(5)(A). The District Court granted summary judgment to petitioner, finding that respondent’s impairments did not substantially limit any of her major life activities. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the impairments substantially limited respondent in the major life activity of performing manual tasks, and therefore granting partial summary judgment to respondent on the issue of whether she was disabled under the ADA. We conclude that the Court of Appeals did not apply the proper standard in making this determination because it analyzed only a limited class of manual tasks and failed to ask whether respondent’s impairments prevented or restricted her from performing tasks that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives.
HH
Respondent began working at petitioner’s automobile manufacturing plant in Georgetown, Kentucky, in August 1990. She was soon placed on an engine fabrication assembly line, where her duties included work with pneumatic tools. Use of these tools eventually caused pain in respondent’s hands, wrists, and arms. She sought treatment at petitioner’s in-house medical service, where she was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral tendinitis. Respondent consulted a personal physician who placed her on permanent work restrictions that precluded her from lifting more than 20 pounds or from “frequently lifting or carrying... objects weighing up to 10 pounds,” engaging in “constant repetitive . . . flexion or extension of [her] wrists or elbows,” performing “overhead work,” or using “vibratory or pneumatic tools.” Brief for Respondent 2; App. 45-46.
In light of these restrictions, for the next two years petitioner assigned respondent to various modified duty jobs. Nonetheless, respondent missed some work for medical leave, and eventually filed a claim under the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §342.0011 et seq. (1997 and Supp. 2000). The parties settled this claim, and respondent returned to work. She was unsatisfied by petitioner’s efforts to accommodate her work restrictions, however, and responded by bringing an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky alleging that petitioner had violated the ADA by refusing to accommodate her disability. That suit was also settled, and as part of the settlement, respondent returned to work in December 1993.
Upon her return, petitioner placed respondent on a team in Quality Control Inspection Operations (QCIO). QCIO is responsible for four tasks: (1) “assembly paint”; (2) “paint second inspection”; (3) “shell body audit”; and (4) “ED surface repair.” App. 19. Respondent was initially placed on a team that performed only the first two of these tasks, and for a couple of years, she rotated on a weekly basis between them. In assembly paint, respondent visually inspected painted cars moving slowly down a conveyor. She scanned for scratches, dents, chips, or any other flaws that may have occurred during the assembly or painting process, at a rate of one car every 54 seconds. When respondent began working in assembly paint, inspection team members were required to open and shut the doors, trunk, and/or hood of each passing car. Sometime during respondent’s tenure, however, the position was modified to include only visual inspection with few or no manual tasks. Paint second inspection required team members to use their hands to wipe each painted car with a glove as it moved along a conveyor. Id., at 21-22. The parties agree that respondent was physically capable of performing both of these jobs and that her performance was satisfactory.
During the fall of 1996, petitioner announced that it wanted QCIO employees to be able to rotate through all four of the QCIO processes. Respondent therefore received training for the shell body audit job, in which team members apply a highlight oil to the hood, fender, doors, rear quarter panel, and trunk of passing cars at a rate of approximately one car per minute. The highlight oil has the viscosity of salad oil, and employees spread it on cars with a sponge attached to a block of wood. After they wipe each car with the oil, the employees visually inspect it for flaws. Wiping the cars required respondent to hold her hands and arms up around shoulder height for several hours at a time.
A short while after the shell body audit job was added to respondent’s rotations, she began to experience pain in her neck and shoulders. Respondent again sought care at petitioner’s in-house medical service, where she was diagnosed with myotendinitis bilateral periscapular, an inflammation of the muscles and tendons around both of her shoulder blades; myotendinitis and myositis bilateral forearms with nerve compression causing median nerve irritation; and thoracic outlet compression, a condition that causes pain in the nerves that lead to the upper extremities. Respondent requested that petitioner accommodate her medical conditions by allowing her to return to doing only her original two jobs in QCIO, which respondent claimed she could still perform without difficulty.
The parties disagree about what happened next. According to respondent, petitioner refused her request and forced her to continue working in the shell body audit job, which caused her even greater physical injury. According to petitioner, respondent simply began missing work on á regular basis. Regardless, it is clear that on December 6, 1996, the last day respondent worked at petitioner’s plant, she was placed under a no-work-of-any-kind restriction by her treating physicians. On January 27,1997, respondent received a letter from petitioner that terminated her employment, citing her poor attendance record.
Respondent filed a charge of disability discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After receiving a right to sue letter, respondent filed suit against petitioner in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Her complaint alleged that petitioner had violated the ADA and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §344.010 et seq. (1997 and Supp. 2000), by failing to reasonably accommodate her disability and by terminating her employment. Respondent later amended her complaint to also allege a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 107 Stat. 6, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §2601 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V).
Respondent based her claim that she was “disabled” under the ADA on the ground that her physical impairments substantially limited her in (1) manual tasks; (2) housework; (3) gardening; (4) playing with her children; (5) lifting; and (6) working, all of which, she argued, constituted major life activities under the Act. Respondent also argued, in the alternative, that she was disabled under the ADA because she had a record of a substantially limiting impairment and because she was regarded as having such an impairment. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 12102(2)(BMC) (1994 ed.).
After petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment and respondent filed a motion for partial summary judgment on her disability claims, the District Court granted summary judgment to petitioner. Civ. A. No. 97-135 (Jan. 26, 1999), App. to Pet. for Cert. A-23. The court found that respondent had not been disabled, as defined by the ADA, at the time of petitioner’s alleged refusal to accommodate her, and that she had therefore not been covered by the Act’s protections or by the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, which is construed consistently with the ADA. Id., at A-29, A-34 to A-47. The District Court held that respondent had suffered from a physical impairment, but that the impairment did not qualify as a disability because it had not “substantially limited]” any “major life activity],” 42 U. S. C. § 12102(2)(A). App. to Pet. for Cert. A-34 to A-42. The court rejected respondent’s arguments that gardening, doing housework, and playing with children are major life activities. Id., at A-35 to A-36. Although the court agreed that performing manual tasks, lifting, and working are major life activities, it found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate that respondent had been substantially limited in lifting or working. Id., at A-36 to A-42. The court found respondent’s claim that she was substantially limited in performing manual tasks to be “irretrievably contradicted by [respondent’s] continual insistence that she could perform the tasks in assembly [paint] and paint [second] inspection without difficulty.” Id., at A-36. The court also found no evidence that respondent had had a record of a substantially limiting impairment, id., at A-43, or that petitioner had regarded her as having such an impairment, id., at A-46 to A-47.
The District Court also rejected respondent’s claim that her termination violated the ADA and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The court found that even if it assumed that respondent was disabled at the time of her termination, she was not a “qualified individual with a disability,” 42 U. S. C. § 12111(8) (1994 ed.), because, at that time, her physicians had restricted her from performing work of any kind, App. to Pet. for Cert. A-47 to A-50. Finally, the court found that respondent’s FMLA claim failed, because she had not presented evidence that she had suffered any damages available under the FMLA. Id., at A-50 to A-54.
Respondent appealed all but the gardening, housework, and playing-with-children rulings. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling on whether respondent was disabled at the time she sought an accommodation, but affirmed the District Court’s rulings on respondent’s FMLA and wrongful termination claims. 224 F. 3d 840 (2000). The Court of Appeals held that in order for respondent to demonstrate that she was disabled due to a substantial limitation in the ability to perform manual tasks at the time of her accommodation request, she had to “show that her manual disability involve[d] a 'class’ of manual activities affecting the ability to perform tasks at work.” Id., at 843. Respondent satisfied this test, according to the Court of Appeals, because her ailments “prevented] her from doing the tasks associated with certain types of manual assembly line jobs, manual product handling jobs and manual building trade jobs (painting, plumbing, roofing, etc.) that require the gripping of tools and repetitive work with hands and arms extended at or above shoulder levels for extended periods of time.” Ibid. In reaching this conclusion, the court disregarded evidence that respondent could “ten[d] to her personal hygiene [and] earr[y] out personal or household chores,” finding that such evidence “does not affect a determination that her impairment substantially limit[ed] her ability to perform the range of manual tasks associated with an assembly line job,” ibid. Because the Court of Appeals concluded that respondent had been substantially limited in performing manual tasks and, for that reason, was entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of whether she was disabled under the Act, it found that it did not need to determine whether respondent had been substantially limited in the major life activities of lifting or working, ibid., or whether she had had a “record of” a disability or had been “regarded as” disabled, id., at 844.
We granted certiorari, 532 U. S. 970 (2001), to consider the proper standard for assessing whether an individual is substantially limited in performing manual tasks. We now reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision to grant partial summary judgment to respondent on the issue of whether she was substantially limited in performing manual tasks at the time she sought an accommodation. We express no opinion on the working, lifting, or other arguments for disability status that were preserved below but which were not ruled upon by the Court of Appeals.
I — Í I — l
The ADA requires covered entities, including private employers, to provide “reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.” 42 U. S. C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) (1994 ed.); see also §12111(2) (“The term ‘covered entity’ means an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee”). The Act defines a “qualified individual with a disability” as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” § 12111(8). In turn, a “disability” is:
“(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;
“(B) a record of such an impairment; or
“(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” §12102(2).
There are two potential sources of guidance for interpreting the terms of this definition — the regulations interpreting the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 361, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 706(8)(B) (1988 ed.), and the EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA. Congress drew the ADA’s definition of disability almost verbatim from the definition of “handicapped individual” in the Rehabilitation Act, § 706(8)(B), and Congress’ repetition of a well-established term generally implies that Congress intended the term to be construed in accordance with pre-existing regulatory interpretations. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U. S. 624, 631 (1998); FDIC v. Philadelphia Gear Corp., 476 U. S. 426, 437-438 (1986); ICC v. Parker, 326 U. S. 60, 65 (1945). As we explained in Bragdon v. Abbott, supra, at 631, Congress did more in the ADA than suggest this construction; it adopted a specific statutory provision directing as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U. S. C. 790 et seq.) or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to such title.” 42 U. S. C. § 12201(a) (1994 ed.).
The persuasive authority of the EEOC regulations is less clear. As we have previously noted, see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U. S. 471, 479 (1999), no agency has been given authority to issue regulations interpreting the term “disability” in the ADA. Nonetheless, the EEOC has done so. See 29 CFR §§ 1630.2(gMj) (2001). Because both parties accept the EEOC regulations as reasonable, we assume without deciding that they are, and we have no occasion to decide what level of deference, if any, they are due. See Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., supra, at 480; Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U. S. 555, 563, n. 10 (1999).
To qualify as disabled under subsection (A) of the ADA’s definition of disability, a claimant must initially prove that he or she has a physical or mental impairment. See 42 U. S. C. § 12102(2)(A). The Rehabilitation Act regulations issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) in 1977, which appear without change in the current regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, define “physical impairment,” the type of impairment relevant to this case, to mean “any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine.” 45 CFR § 84.3( j)(2)(i) (2001). The HEW regulations are of particular significance because at the time they were issued, HEW was the agency responsible for coordinating the implementation and enforcement of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U. S. C. § 794 (1994 ed. and Supp. V), which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by recipients of federal financial assistance. Bragdon v. Abbott, supra, at 632 (citing Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone, 465 U. S. 624, 634 (1984)).
Merely having an impairment does not make one disabled for purposes of the ADA. Claimants also need to demonstrate that the impairment limits a major life activity. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A) (1994 ed.). The HEW Rehabilitation Act regulations provide a list of examples of “major life activities” that includes “walking, seeing, hearing,” and, as relevant here, “performing manual tasks.” 45 CFR §84.8(j)(2)(ii) (2001).
To qualify as disabled, a claimant must further show that the limitation on the major life activity is “substantia[l].” 42 U. S. C. § 12102(2)(A). Unlike “physical impairment” and “major life activities,” the HEW regulations do not define the term “substantially limits.” See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance, 42 Fed. Reg. 22676, 22685 (1977) (stating HEW’s position that a definition of “substantially limits” was not possible at that time). The EEOC, therefore, has created its own definition for purposes of the ADA. According to the EEOC regulations, “substantially limit[ed]” means “[u]nable to. perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform”; or “[significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” 29 CFR § 1630.2(j) (2001). In determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity, the regulations instruct that the following factors should be considered: “[t]he nature and severity of the impairment; [t]he duration or expected duration of the impairment; and [t]he permanent or long-term impact, or the expected permanent or long-term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” §§ 1630.2(j)(2)(i)-(iii).
III
The question presented by this case is whether the Sixth Circuit properly determined that respondent was disabled under subsection (A) of the ADA’s disability definition at the time that she sought an accommodation from petitioner. 42 U. S. C. § 12102(2)(A). The parties do not dispute that respondent’s medical conditions, which include carpal tunnel syndrome, myotendinitis, and thoracic outlet compression, amount to physical impairments. The relevant question, therefore, is whether the Sixth Circuit correctly analyzed whether these impairments substantially limited respondent in the major life activity of performing manual tasks. Answering this requires us to address an issue about which the EEOC regulations are silent: what a plaintiff must demonstrate to establish a substantial limitation in the specific major life activity of performing manual tasks.
Our consideration of this issue is guided first and foremost by the words of the disability definition itself. “[Substantially” in the phrase “substantially limits” suggests “considerable” or “to a large degree.” See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2280 (1976) (defining “substantially” as “in a substantial manner” and “substantial” as “considerable in amount, value, or worth” and “being that specified to a large degree or in the main”); see also 17 Oxford English Dictionary 66-67 (2d ed. 1989) (“substantial”: “[Relating to or proceeding from the essence of a thing; essential”; “[o]f ample or considerable amount, quantity, or dimensions”). The word “substantial” thus clearly precludes impairments that interfere in only a minor way with the performance of manual tasks from qualifying as disabilities. Cf. Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U. S., at 565 (explaining that a “mere difference” does not amount to a “significant restriction]” and therefore does not satisfy the EEOC’s interpretation of “substantially limits”).
“Major” in the phrase “major life activities” means important. See Webster’s, supra, at 1363 (defining “major” as “greater in dignity, rank, importance, or interest”). “Major life activities” thus refers to those activities that are of central importance to daily life. In order for performing manual tasks to fit into this category — a category that includes such basic abilities as walking, seeing, and hearing — the manual tasks in question must be central to daily life. If each of the tasks included in the major life activity of performing manual tasks does not independently qualify as a major life activity, then together they must do so.
That these terms need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled is confirmed by the first section of the ADA, which lays out the legislative findings and purposes that motivate the Act. See 42 U. S. C. § 12101. When it enacted the ADA in 1990, Congress found that “some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities.” § 12101(a)(1). If Congress intended everyone with a physical impairment that precluded the performance of some isolated, unimportant, or particularly difficult manual task to qualify as disabled, the number of disabled Americans would surely have been much higher. Cf. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U. S., at 487 (finding that because more than 100 million people need corrective lenses to see properly, “[h]ad Congress intended to include all persons with corrected physical limitations among those covered by the Act, it undoubtedly would have cited a much higher number [than 43 million] disabled persons in the findings”).
We therefore hold that to be substantially limited in performing manual tasks, an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives. The impairment’s impact must also be permanent or long term. See 29 CFR §§ 1630.2(j)(2)(ii)-(iii) (2001).
It is insufficient for individuals attempting to prove disability status under this test to merely submit evidence of a medical diagnosis of an impairment. Instead, the ADA requires those “claiming the Act’s protection ... to prove a disability by offering evidence that the extent of the limitation [caused by their impairment] in terms of their own experience ... is substantial.” Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, supra, at 567 (holding that monocular vision is not invariably a disability, but must be analyzed on an individual basis, taking into account the individual’s ability to compensate for the impairment). That the Act defines “disability” “with respect to an individual,” 42 U. S. C. § 12102(2), makes clear that Congress intended the existence of a disability to be determined in such a case-by-case manner. See Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., supra, at 483; Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, supra, at 566; cf. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U. S., at 641-642 (relying on unchallenged testimony that the respondent’s HIV infection controlled her decision not to have a child, and declining to consider whether HIV infection is a per se disability under the ADA); 29 CFR pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2(j) (2001) (“The determination of whether an individual has a disability is not necessarily based on the name or diagnosis of the impairment the person has, but rather on the effect of that impairment on the life of the individual”); ibid. (“The determination of whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity must be made on a case-by-case basis”).
An individualized assessment of the effect of an impairment is particularly necessary when the impairment is one whose symptoms vary widely from person to person. Carpal tunnel syndrome, one of respondent’s impairments, is just such a condition. While cases of severe carpal tunnel syndrome are characterized by muscle atrophy and extreme sensory deficits, mild cases generally do not have either of these effects and create only intermittent symptoms of numbness and tingling. Carniero, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: The Cause Dictates the Treatment, 66 Cleveland Clinic J. Medicine 169, 161-162 (1999). Studies have further shown that, even without surgical treatment, one quarter of carpal tunnel cases resolve in one month, but that in 22 percent of cases, symptoms last for eight years or longer. See DeSte-fano, Nordstrom, & Uierkant, Long-term Symptom Outcomes of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and its Treatment, 22A J. Hand Surgery 200, 204-205 (1997). When pregnancy is the cause of carpal tunnel syndrome, in contrast, the symptoms normally resolve within two weeks of delivery. See Ouel-lette, Nerve Compression Syndromes of the Upper Extremity in Women, 17 J. of Musculoskeletal Medicine 536 (2000). Given these large potential differences in the severity and duration of the effects of carpal tunnel syndrome, an individual’s carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis, on its own, does not indicate whether the individual has-a disability within the meaning of the ADA.
IV
The Court of Appeals’ analysis of respondent’s claimed disability suggested that in order to prove a substantial limitation in the major life activity of performing manual tasks, a “plaintiff must show that her manual disability involves a ‘class’ of manual activities,” and that those activities “affec[t] the ability to perform tasks at work.” See 224 F. 3d, at 843. Both of these ideas lack support.
The Court of Appeals relied on our opinion in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., for the idea that a “class” of manual activities must be implicated for an impairment to substantially limit the major life activity of performing manual tasks. 224 F. 3d, at 843. But Sutton said only that “[w]hen the major life activity under consideration is that of working, the statutory phrase ‘substantially limits’ requires . . . that plaintiffs allege they are unable to work in a broad class of jobs.” 527 U. S., at 491 (emphasis added). Because of the conceptual difficulties inherent in the argument that working could be a major life activity, we have been hesitant to hold as much, and we need not decide this difficult question today. In Sutton, we noted that even assuming that working is a major life activity, a claimant would be required to show an inability to work in a “broad range of jobs,” rather than a specific job. Id., at 492. But Sutton did not suggest that a class-based analysis should be applied to any major life activity other than working. Nor do the EEOC regulations. In defining “substantially limits,” the EEOC regulations only mention the “class” concept in the context of the major life activity of working. 29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(3) (2001) (“With respect to the major life activity of working[,] [t]he term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities”). Nothing in the text of the Act, our previous opinions, or the regulations suggests that a class-based framework should apply outside the context of the major life activity of working.
While the Court of Appeals in this case addressed the different major life activity of performing manual tasks, its analysis circumvented Sutton by focusing on respondent’s inability to perform manual tasks associated only with her job. This was error. When addressing the major life activity of performing manual tasks, the central inquiry must be whether the claimant is unable to perform the variety of tasks central to most people’s daily lives, not whether the claimant is unable to perform the tasks associated with her specific job. Otherwise, Sutton’s restriction on claims of disability based on a substantial limitation in working will be rendered meaningless because an inability to perform a specific job always can be recast as an inability to perform a “class” of tasks associated with that specific job.
There is also no support in the Act, our previous opinions, or the regulations for the Court of Appeals’ idea that the question of whether an impairment constitutes a disability is to be answered only by analyzing the effect of the impairment in the workplace Indeed, the fact that the Act’s definition of “disability” applies not only to Title I of the Act, 42 U. S. C. §§ 12111-12117 (1994 ed.), which deals with employment, but also to the other portions of the Act, which deal with subjects such as public transportation, §§ 12141-12150, 42 U. S. C. §§ 12161-12165 (1994 ed. and Supp. V), and privately provided public accommodations, §§12181-12189, demonstrates that the definition is intended to cover individuals with disabling impairments regardless of whether the individuals have any connection to a workplace.
Even more critically, the manual tasks unique to any particular job are not necessarily important parts of most people’s lives. As a result, occupation-specific tasks may have only limited relevance to the manual task inquiry. In this case, “repetitive work with hands and arms extended at or above shoulder levels for extended periods of time,” 224 F. 3d, at 843, the manual task on which the Court of Appeals relied, is not an important part of most people’s daily lives. The court, therefore, should not have considered respondent’s inability to do such manual work in her specialized assembly line job as sufficient proof that she was substantially limited in performing manual tasks.
At the same time, the Court of Appeals appears to have disregarded the very type of evidence that it should have focused upon. It treated as irrelevant “[t]he fact that [respondent] can ... ten[d] to her personal hygiene [and] carr[y] out personal or household chores.” Ibid. Yet household chores, bathing, and brushing one’s teeth are among the types of manual tasks of central importance to people’s daily lives, and should have been part of the assessment of whether respondent was substantially limited in performing manual tasks.
The District Court noted that at the time respondent sought an accommodation from petitioner, she admitted that she was able to do the manual tasks required by her original two jobs in QCIO. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-36. In addition, according to respondent’s deposition testimony, even after her condition worsened, she could still brush her teeth, wash her face, bathe, tend her flower garden, fix breakfast, do laundry, and pick up around the house. App. 32-34. The record also indicates that her medical conditions caused her to avoid sweeping, to quit dancing, to occasionally seek help dressing, and to reduce how often she plays with her children, gardens, and drives long distances. Id., at 32, 38-39. But these changes in her life did not amount to such severe restrictions in the activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives that they establish a manual task disability as a matter of law. On this record, it was therefore inappropriate for the Court of Appeals to grant partial summary judgment to respondent on the issue of whether she was substantially limited in performing manual tasks, and its decision to do so must be reversed.
In its brief on the merits, petitioner asks us to reinstate the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to petitioner on the manual task issue. In its petition for certio-rari, however, petitioner did not seek summary judgment; it argued only that the Court of Appeals’ reasons for granting partial summary judgment to respondent were unsound. This Court’s Rule 14.1(a) provides: “Only the questions set out in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court.” The question of whether petitioner was entitled to summary judgment on the manual task issue is therefore not properly before us. See Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 129-130 (1954).
Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment granting partial summary judgment to respondent and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the respondent of the case. The respondent is the party being sued or tried and is also known as the appellee. Characterize the respondent as the Court's opinion identifies them.
Identify the respondent by the label given to the party in the opinion or judgment of the Court except where the Reports title a party as the "United States" or as a named state. Textual identification of parties is typically provided prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. The official syllabus, the summary that appears on the title page of the case, may be consulted as well. In describing the parties, the Court employs terminology that places them in the context of the specific lawsuit in which they are involved. For example, "employer" rather than "business" in a suit by an employee; as a "minority," "female," or "minority female" employee rather than "employee" in a suit alleging discrimination by an employer.
Also note that the Court's characterization of the parties applies whether the respondent is actually single entitiy or whether many other persons or legal entities have associated themselves with the lawsuit. That is, the presence of the phrase, et al., following the name of a party does not preclude the Court from characterizing that party as though it were a single entity. Thus, identify a single respondent, regardless of how many legal entities were actually involved. If a state (or one of its subdivisions) is a party, note only that a state is a party, not the state's name. | Who is the respondent of the case? | [
"attorney general of the United States, or his office",
"specified state board or department of education",
"city, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit",
"state commission, board, committee, or authority",
"county government or county governmental unit, except school district",
"court or judicial district",
"state department or agency",
"governmental employee or job applicant",
"female governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority female governmental employee or job applicant",
"not listed among agencies in the first Administrative Action variable",
"retired or former governmental employee",
"U.S. House of Representatives",
"interstate compact",
"judge",
"state legislature, house, or committee",
"local governmental unit other than a county, city, town, township, village, or borough",
"governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact",
"state or U.S. supreme court",
"local school district or board of education",
"U.S. Senate",
"U.S. senator",
"foreign nation or instrumentality",
"state or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate of",
"state college or university",
"United States",
"State",
"person accused, indicted, or suspected of crime",
"advertising business or agency",
"agent, fiduciary, trustee, or executor",
"airplane manufacturer, or manufacturer of parts of airplanes",
"airline",
"distributor, importer, or exporter of alcoholic beverages",
"alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked",
"American Medical Association",
"National Railroad Passenger Corp.",
"amusement establishment, or recreational facility",
"arrested person, or pretrial detainee",
"attorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association",
"author, copyright holder",
"bank, savings and loan, credit union, investment company",
"bankrupt person or business, or business in reorganization",
"establishment serving liquor by the glass, or package liquor store",
"water transportation, stevedore",
"bookstore, newsstand, printer, bindery, purveyor or distributor of books or magazines",
"brewery, distillery",
"broker, stock exchange, investment or securities firm",
"construction industry",
"bus or motorized passenger transportation vehicle",
"business, corporation",
"buyer, purchaser",
"cable TV",
"car dealer",
"person convicted of crime",
"tangible property, other than real estate, including contraband",
"chemical company",
"child, children, including adopted or illegitimate",
"religious organization, institution, or person",
"private club or facility",
"coal company or coal mine operator",
"computer business or manufacturer, hardware or software",
"consumer, consumer organization",
"creditor, including institution appearing as such; e.g., a finance company",
"person allegedly criminally insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial",
"defendant",
"debtor",
"real estate developer",
"disabled person or disability benefit claimant",
"distributor",
"person subject to selective service, including conscientious objector",
"drug manufacturer",
"druggist, pharmacist, pharmacy",
"employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of",
"employer-employee trust agreement, employee health and welfare fund, or multi-employer pension plan",
"electric equipment manufacturer",
"electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company",
"eleemosynary institution or person",
"environmental organization",
"employer. If employer's relations with employees are governed by the nature of the employer's business (e.g., railroad, boat), rather than labor law generally, the more specific designation is used in place of Employer.",
"farmer, farm worker, or farm organization",
"father",
"female employee or job applicant",
"female",
"movie, play, pictorial representation, theatrical production, actor, or exhibitor or distributor of",
"fisherman or fishing company",
"food, meat packing, or processing company, stockyard",
"foreign (non-American) nongovernmental entity",
"franchiser",
"franchisee",
"lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization",
"person who guarantees another's obligations",
"handicapped individual, or organization of devoted to",
"health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor",
"heir, or beneficiary, or person so claiming to be",
"hospital, medical center",
"husband, or ex-husband",
"involuntarily committed mental patient",
"Indian, including Indian tribe or nation",
"insurance company, or surety",
"inventor, patent assigner, trademark owner or holder",
"investor",
"injured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related",
"juvenile",
"government contractor",
"holder of a license or permit, or applicant therefor",
"magazine",
"male",
"medical or Medicaid claimant",
"medical supply or manufacturing co.",
"racial or ethnic minority employee or job applicant",
"minority female employee or job applicant",
"manufacturer",
"management, executive officer, or director, of business entity",
"military personnel, or dependent of, including reservist",
"mining company or miner, excluding coal, oil, or pipeline company",
"mother",
"auto manufacturer",
"newspaper, newsletter, journal of opinion, news service",
"radio and television network, except cable tv",
"nonprofit organization or business",
"nonresident",
"nuclear power plant or facility",
"owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels",
"shareholders to whom a tender offer is made",
"tender offer",
"oil company, or natural gas producer",
"elderly person, or organization dedicated to the elderly",
"out of state noncriminal defendant",
"political action committee",
"parent or parents",
"parking lot or service",
"patient of a health professional",
"telephone, telecommunications, or telegraph company",
"physician, MD or DO, dentist, or medical society",
"public interest organization",
"physically injured person, including wrongful death, who is not an employee",
"pipe line company",
"package, luggage, container",
"political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official",
"indigent, needy, welfare recipient",
"indigent defendant",
"private person",
"prisoner, inmate of penal institution",
"professional organization, business, or person",
"probationer, or parolee",
"protester, demonstrator, picketer or pamphleteer (non-employment related), or non-indigent loiterer",
"public utility",
"publisher, publishing company",
"radio station",
"racial or ethnic minority",
"person or organization protesting racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination",
"racial or ethnic minority student or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"realtor",
"journalist, columnist, member of the news media",
"resident",
"restaurant, food vendor",
"retarded person, or mental incompetent",
"retired or former employee",
"railroad",
"private school, college, or university",
"seller or vendor",
"shipper, including importer and exporter",
"shopping center, mall",
"spouse, or former spouse",
"stockholder, shareholder, or bondholder",
"retail business or outlet",
"student, or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"taxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only",
"tenant or lessee",
"theater, studio",
"forest products, lumber, or logging company",
"person traveling or wishing to travel abroad, or overseas travel agent",
"trucking company, or motor carrier",
"television station",
"union member",
"unemployed person or unemployment compensation applicant or claimant",
"union, labor organization, or official of",
"veteran",
"voter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)",
"wholesale trade",
"wife, or ex-wife",
"witness, or person under subpoena",
"network",
"slave",
"slave-owner",
"bank of the united states",
"timber company",
"u.s. job applicants or employees",
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"General Land Office of Commissioners",
"Transportation Security Administration",
"Surface Transportation Board",
"U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.",
"Reconstruction Finance Corp.",
"Department or Secretary of Homeland Security",
"Unidentifiable",
"International Entity"
] | [
82
] | sc |
BERNAL v. FAINTER, SECRETARY OF STATE OF TEXAS, et al.
No. 83-630.
Argued March 28, 1984
Decided May 30, 1984
Cornish F. Hitchcock argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Alan B. Morrison, John Cary Sims, Thomas Sullivan, and Denis A. Downey.
Mary F. Keller, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Jim Mattox, Attorney General, Fernando Gomez, Assistant Attorney General, and David R. Richards.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question posed by this case is whether a statute of the State of Texas violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by denying aliens the opportunity to become notaries public. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the statute does not offend the Equal Protection Clause. We granted certiorari, 464 U. S. 1007 (1983), and now reverse.
Petitioner, a native of Mexico, is a resident alien who has lived in the United States since 1961. He works as a paralegal for Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., helping migrant farm-workers on employment and civil rights matters. In order to administer oaths to these workers and to notarize their statements for use in civil litigation, petitioner applied in 1978 to become a notary public. Under Texas law, notaries public authenticate written instruments, administer oaths, and take out-of-court depositions. The Texas Secretary of State denied petitioner’s application because he failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that a notary public be a citizen of the United States. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 5949(2) (Vernon Supp. 1984) (hereafter Article 5949(2)). After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner brought suit in the Federal District Court, claiming that the citizenship requirement mandated by Article 5942(2) violated the Federal Constitution.
The District Court ruled in favor of petitioner. Vargas v. Strake, C. A. No. B-79-147 (SD Tex., Oct. 9, 1981) (mem.). It reviewed the State’s citizenship requirement under a strict-scrutiny standard and concluded that the requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court also suggested that even under a rational-relationship standard, the state statute would fail to pass constitutional muster because its citizenship requirement “is wholly unrelated to the achievement of any valid state interest.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 11a. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding that the proper standard for review was the rational-relationship test and that Article 5949(2) satisfied that test because it “bears a rational relationship to the state’s interest in the proper and orderly handling of a countless variety of legal documents of importance to the state.” Vargas v. Stroke, 710 F. 2d 190, 195 (1983).
II
As a general matter, a state law that discriminates on the basis of alienage can be sustained only if it can withstand strict judicial scrutiny. In order to withstand strict scrutiny, the law must advance a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means available. Applying this principle, we have invalidated an array of state statutes that denied aliens the right to pursue various occupations. In Sugar-man v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634 (1973), we struck down a state statute barring aliens from employment in permanent positions in the competitive class of the state civil service. In In re Griffiths, 413 U. S. 717 (1973), we nullified a state law excluding aliens from eligibility for membership in the State Bar. And in Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572 (1976), we voided a state law that excluded aliens from the practice of civil engineering.
We have, however, developed a narrow exception to the rule that discrimination based on alienage triggers strict scrutiny. This exception has been labeled the “political function” exception and applies to laws that exclude aliens from positions intimately related to the process of democratic self-government. The contours of the “political function” exception are outlined by our prior decisions. In Foley v. Connelie, 435 U. S. 291 (1978), we held that a State may require police to be citizens because, in performing a fundamental obligation of government, police “are clothed with authority to exercise an almost infinite variety of discretionary powers” often involving the most sensitive areas of daily life. Id., at 297. In Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U. S. 68 (1979), we held that a State may bar aliens who have not declared their intent to become citizens from teaching in the public schools because teachers, like police, possess a high degree of responsibility and discretion in the fulfillment of a basic governmental obligation. They have direct, day-to-day contact with students, exercise unsupervised discretion over them, act as role models, and influence their students about the government and the political process. Id., at 78-79. Finally, in Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U. S. 432 (1982), we held that a State may bar aliens from positions as probation officers because they, like police and teachers, routinely exercise discretionary power, involving a basic governmental function, that places them in a position of direct authority over other individuals.
The rationale behind the political-function exception is that within broad boundaries a State may establish its own form of government and limit the right to govern to those who are full-fledged members of the political community. Some public positions are so closely bound up with the formulation and implementation of self-government that the State is permitted to exclude from those positions persons outside the political community, hence persons who have not become part of the process of democratic self-determination.
“The exclusion of aliens from basic governmental processes is not a deficiency in the democratic system but a necessary consequence of the community’s process of political self-definition. Self-government, whether direct or through representatives, begins by defining the scope of the community of the governed and thus of the governors as well: Aliens are by definition those outside of this community.” Id., at 439-440.
We have therefore lowered our standard of review when evaluating the validity of exclusions that entrust only to citizens important elective and nonelective positions whose operations “go to the heart of representative government.” Sugarman v. Dougall, supra, at 647. “While not retreating from the position that restrictions on lawfully resident aliens that primarily affect economic interests are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny... we have concluded that strict scrutiny is out of place’when the restriction primarily serves a political function. . . .” Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, supra, at 439 (citation omitted).
To determine whether a restriction based on alienage fits within the narrow political-function exception, we devised in Cabell a two-part test.
“First, the specificity of the classification will be examined: a classification that is substantially overinclusive or underinclusive tends to undercut the governmental claim that the classification serves legitimate political ends. . . . Second, even if the classification is sufficiently tailored, it may be applied in the particular case only to ‘persons holding state elective or important nonelective executive, legislative, and judicial positions,’ those officers who ‘participate directly in the formulation, execution, or review of broad public policy’ and hence ‘perform functions that go to the heart of representative government.’” 454 U. S., at 440 (quoting Sugarman v. Dougall, supra, at 647).
III
We now turn to Article 5949(2) to determine whether it satisfies the Cabell test. The statute provides that “[t]o be eligible for appointment as a Notary Public, a person shall be a resident citizen of the United States and of this state ...” Unlike the statute invalidated in Sugarman, Article 5949(2) does not indiscriminately sweep within its ambit a wide range of offices and occupations but specifies only one particular post with respect to which the State asserts a right to exclude aliens. Clearly, then, the statute is not overinclusive; it applies narrowly to only one category of persons: those wishing to obtain appointments as notaries. Less clear is whether Article 5949(2) is fatally underinclusive. Texas does not require court reporters to be United States citizens even though they perform some of the same services as notaries. Nor does Texas require that its Secretary of State be a citizen, even though he holds the highest appointive position in the State and performs many important functions, including supervision of the licensing of all notaries public. We need not decide this issue, however, because of our decision with respect to the second prong of the Cabell test.
In support of the proposition that notaries public fall within that category of officials who perform functions that “go to the heart of representative government,” the State emphasizes that notaries are designated as public officers by the Texas Constitution. Texas maintains that this designation indicates that the State views notaries as important officials occupying posts central to the State’s definition of itself as a political community. This Court, however, has never deemed the source of a position — whether it derives from a State’s statute or its Constitution — as the dispositive factor in determining whether a State may entrust the position only to citizens. Rather, this Court has always looked to the actual function of the position as the dispositive factor. The focus of our inquiry has been whether a position was such that the officeholder would necessarily exercise broad discretionary power over the formulation or execution of public policies importantly affecting the citizen population — power of the sort that a self-governing community could properly entrust only to full-fledged members of that community. As the Court noted in Cabell, in determining whether the function of a particular position brings the position within the narrow ambit of the exception, “the Court will look to the importance of the function as a factor giving substance to the concept of democratic self-government.” 454 U. S., at 441, n. 7.
The State maintains that even if the actual function of a post is the touchstone of a proper analysis, Texas notaries public should still be classified among those positions from which aliens can properly be excluded because the duties of Texas notaries entail the performance of functions sufficiently consequential to be deemed “political.” The Court of Appeals ably articulated this argument:
“With the power to acknowledge instruments such as wills and deeds and leases and mortgages; to take out-of-court depositions; to administer oaths; and the discretion to refuse to perform any of the foregoing acts, notaries public in Texas are involved in countless matters of importance to the day-to-day functioning of state government. The Texas political community depends upon the notary public to insure that those persons executing documents are accurately identified, to refuse to certify any identification that is false or uncertain, and to insist that oaths are properly and accurately administered. Land titles and property succession depend upon the care and integrity of the notary public, as well as the familiarity of the notary with the community, to verify the authenticity of the execution of the documents.” 710 F. 2d, at 194.
We recognize the critical need for a notary’s duties to be carried out correctly and with integrity. But a notary’s duties, important as they are, hardly implicate responsibilities that go to the heart of representative government. Rather, these duties are essentially clerical and ministerial. In contrast to state troopers, Foley v. Connelie, 435 U. S. 291 (1978), notaries do not routinely exercise the State’s monopoly of legitimate coercive force. Nor do notaries routinely exercise the wide discretion typically enjoyed by public school teachers when they present materials that educate youth respecting the information and values necessary for the maintenance of a democratic political system. See Ambach v. Norwich, 441 U. S., at 77. To be sure, considerable damage could result from the negligent or dishonest performance of a notary’s duties. But the same could be said for the duties performed by cashiers, building inspectors, the janitors who clean up the offices of public officials, and numerous other categories of personnel upon whom we depend for careful, honest service. What distinguishes such personnel from those to whom the political-function exception is properly applied is that the latter are invested either with policymaking responsibility or broad discretion in the execution of public policy that requires the routine exercise of authority over individuals. Neither of these characteristics pertains to the functions performed by Texas notaries.
The inappropriateness of applying the political-function exception to Texas notaries is further underlined by our decision in In re Griffiths, 413 U. S. 634 (1973), in which we subjected to strict scrutiny a Connecticut statute that prohibited noncitizens from becoming members of the State Bar. Along with the usual powers and privileges accorded to members of the bar, Connecticut gave to members of its Bar additional authority that encompasses the very duties performed by Texas notaries — authority to “ 'sign writs and subpoenas, take recognizances, administer oaths and take depositions and acknowledgements of deeds.’” Id,., at 723 (quoting Connecticut statute). In striking down Connecticut’s citizenship requirement, we concluded that “[i]t in no way denigrates a lawyer’s high responsibilities to observe that [these duties] hardly involve matters of state policy or acts of such unique responsibility as to entrust them only to citizens.” Id., at 724. If it is improper to apply the political-function exception to a citizenship requirement governing eligibility for membership in a state bar, it would be anomalous to apply the exception to the citizenship requirement that governs eligibility to become a Texas notary. We conclude, then, that the “political function” exception is inapplicable to Article 5949(2) and that the statute is therefore subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
IV
To satisfy strict scrutiny, the State must show that Article 5949(2) furthers a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means practically available. Respondents maintain that Article 5949(2) serves its “legitimate concern that notaries be reasonably familiar with state law and institutions” and “that notaries may be called upon years later to testify to acts they have performed.” Brief for Respondents 24-25. However, both of these asserted justifications utterly fail to meet the stringent requirements of strict scrutiny. There is nothing in the record that indicates that resident aliens, as a class,- are so incapable of familiarizing themselves with Texas law as to justify the State’s absolute and classwide exclusion. The possibility that some resident aliens are unsuitable for the position cannot justify a wholesale ban against all resident aliens. Furthermore, if the State’s concern with ensuring a notary’s familiarity with state law were truly “compelling,” one would expect the State to give some sort of test actually measuring a person’s familiarity with the law. The State, however, administers no such test. To become a notary public in Texas, one is merely required to fill out an application that lists one’s name and address and that answers four questions pertaining to one’s age, citizenship, residency, and criminal record — nothing that reflects the State’s asserted interest in ensuring that notaries are familiar with Texas law. Similarly inadequate is the State’s purported interest in ensuring the later availability of notaries’ testimony. This justification fails because the State fails to advance a factual showing that the unavailability of notaries’ testimony presents a real, as opposed to a merely speculative, problem to the State. Without a factual underpinning, the State’s asserted interest lacks the weight we have required of interests properly denominated as compelling.
V
We conclude that Article 5949(2) violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 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.
Prior to his employment in Texas, petitioner worked in a legal services program in Indiana and held a commission as a notary in that State. Vargas v. Strake, 710 F. 2d 190, 191 (CA5 1983).
“Notaries Public shall have the same authority to take acknowledgments or proofs of written instruments, protest instruments permitted by law to be protested, administer oaths, and take depositions, as is now or may hereafter be conferred by law upon County Clerks . . . .” Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 5954 (Vernon Supp. 1984); see also R. Rothman, Notary Public: Practices & Glossary (1978).
This suit was initially brought by Margarita M. Vargas whom petitioner joined as a coplaintiff. Vargas is no longer a party to this suit because subsequent to filing her complaint she obtained United States citizenship. Vargas v. Strake, supra, at 192.
The holding of the Court of Appeals conflicts with the holding of every other state and federal court decision that has considered the constitutionality of statutes barring aliens from eligibility to become notaries public. See, e. g., Jii v. Rhodes, 577 F. Supp. 1128 (SD Ohio 1983) (invalidating Ohio statute); Cheng v. Illinois, 438 F. Supp. 917 (ND Ill. 1977) (invalidating Illinois statute); Taggart v. Mandel, 391 F. Supp. 733 (Md. 1975) (invalidating Maryland statute) (three-judge court); Graham v. Ramani, 383 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1980) (invalidating Florida statute).
“[Cjlassifications based on alienage, like those based on nationality or race, are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny. Aliens as a class are a prime example of a ‘discrete and insular’ minority ... for whom such heightened judicial solicitude is appropriate.” Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 372 (1971) (footnotes and citations omitted).
Only rarely are statutes sustained in the face of strict scrutiny. As one commentator observed, strict-scrutiny review is “strict” in theory but usually “fatal” in fact. Gunther, The Supreme Court, 1971 Term — Foreword: In Search of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 8 (1972).
We emphasize, as we have in the past, that the political-function exception must be narrowly construed; otherwise the exception will swallow the rule and depreciate the significance that should attach to the designation of a group as a “discrete and insular” minority for whom heightened judicial solicitude is appropriate. See Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U. S. 1, 11 (1977).
Like notaries public, court reporters are authorized to administer oaths and take depositions. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 2324a(1) (Vernon 1971).
Texas appears to require only that the Secretary of State be appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. See Tex. Const., Art. IV, § 21. Respondents, moreover, implicitly concede that the State imposes no citizenship requirement upon the position of Secretary of State. See Brief for Respondents 21-24 (distinguishing notaries public and other officers subject to a citizenship requirement from Secretary of State).
See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 5949(3) (Vernon Supp. 1984).
The Texas Constitution provides that “[t]he Secretary of State shall appoint a convenient number of Notaries Public for the state. ...” Art. IV, § 26. Texas is one of only six States in which the State Constitution provides for the appointment of notaries. 1 G. Braden et ah, The Constitution of the State of Texas: An Annotated and Comparative Analysis 361-362 (1977) (hereinafter Braden).
We note, moreover, that although authorization for the appointment of notaries public has long been a feature of the Texas Constitution, the significance of the position has necessarily been diluted by changes in the appointment process and by the wholesale proliferation of notaries. The Texas Constitution of 1845 authorized the appointment of only six notaries per county and directed that they be appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the State Senate. Braden 361. By contrast, the Texas Constitution now authorizes the Secretary of State to appoint a “convenient” number of notaries for each county. Art. IV, § 26; see also Braden 361-362. Counsel for respondents conceded at oral argument that the number of Texas notaries exceeds 100,000. Tr. of Oral Arg. 17 (“I believe, reading Petitioner’s brief, that there are in excess of 100,000. Maybe there are 300,000 notaries”).
Notaries Public shall have the same authority to take acknowledgments or proofs of written instruments, protest instruments permitted by law to be protested, administer oaths, and take depositions, as is now or may hereafter be conferred by law upon County Clerks. ...” Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 5954 (Vernon Supp. 1984). County clerks are authorized to record and acknowledge a wide range of documents. Art. 6591 (Vernon 1969) (“County clerks shall be the recorders for their respective counties”).
At oral argument, counsel for respondents observed in passing that Texas authorizes notaries to subpoena witnesses for the purpose of obtaining testimony regarding the authenticity of a document, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 6616 (Vernon 1969), and also authorizes notaries to enforce this authority with civil contempt powers. Art. 6618. We do not consider the notary’s apparent power to hold persons in contempt at all analogous to the coercive power routinely exercised by policemen, judges, or other officers charged with the administration of justice. One indication that this power is merely formal with no relevance to day-to-day experience is that it seems to have figured in only two reported cases, the most recent of which was decided over 40 years ago in 1942. See Ex parte Wolf, 116 Tex. Crim. 127, 34 S. W. 2d 277 (1930); Harbison v. McMurray, 138 Tex. 192, 158 S. W. 2d 284 (1942). That it was not even mentioned in respondents’ brief is a further indication that this power is moribund. Cf. Jii v. Rhodes, 577 F. Supp., at 1131 (political-function exception not applicable to notary public notwithstanding notary’s statutory authorization to hold recalcitrant witness in contempt).
In Connecticut, members of the Bar were empowered to function both as attorneys and as commissioners of the Superior Court. The former position entailed lawyer’s work; the latter, work that is often performed by notaries public. See In Re Griffiths, 413 U. S., at 723-725.
See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 5949(3)(a) (Vernon Supp. 1984).
The State did not even attempt to defend the statute against strict scrutiny, perhaps recognizing that such a defense would be futile. Rather, the State simply asserted that the statute could withstand the lesser scrutiny of rationality review. See Brief for Respondents 24. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the reason, if any, given by the court for granting the petition for certiorari. | What reason, if any, does the court give for granting the petition for certiorari? | [
"case did not arise on cert or cert not granted",
"federal court conflict",
"federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question",
"putative conflict",
"conflict between federal court and state court",
"state court conflict",
"federal court confusion or uncertainty",
"state court confusion or uncertainty",
"federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty",
"to resolve important or significant question",
"to resolve question presented",
"no reason given",
"other reason"
] | [
11
] | sc |
HADNOTT et al. v. AMOS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.
No. 647.
Argued January 21, 1969.
Decided March 25, 1969.
Charles Morgan, Jr., argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Reber F. Boult, Jr., Orzell Billingsley, Jr., Robert P. Schwenn, Melvin L. Wulf, and Eleanor Holmes Norton.
L. Drew Redden, Special Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, argued the cause for appellees Amos et al. With him on the brief were MacDonald Gallion, Attorney-General, pro se, John G. Bookout, Deputy Attorney General, and Gordon Madison and Leslie Hall, Assistant Attorneys General.
Louis F. Claiborne argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Poliak, Nathan Lewin, and Frank M. Dunbaugh.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit is a class action brought by the National Democratic Party of Alabama (NDPA) and some of its officers and candidates in the 1968 general election against Alabama state officials who had refused to include various NDPA candidates on the ballot for various county and state-wide offices. As the complaint sought an injunction against enforcement of Alabama statutes on federal constitutional grounds, a three-judge federal court was impaneled. 28 U. S. C. § 2281.
The District Court entered a temporary restraining order. Thereafter appellees filed their answer challenging, inter alia, the qualifications of NDPA candidates because of their failure to satisfy certain specified requirements of Alabama law. On October 11, 1968, after a hearing on the merits, the three-judge court, by a divided vote, dissolved the temporary injunction and upheld on their face and as applied all the challenged Alabama statutes.
Appellants appealed to this Court (28 U. S. C. § 1253) and on October 14 we restored the District Court's temporary restraining order, saying: “The application for restoration of temporary relief is granted pending oral argument on the application, which is set for Friday, October 18, 1968, at 9:00 a. m. The case is placed on the summary calendar.”
And on October 19, 1968, we entered an additional order providing in part:
“The order entered October 14, 1968, restoring temporary relief is continued pending action upon the jurisdictional statement which has been filed.”
NDPA candidates, mostly Negroes, were elected to various local offices in Etowah, Marengo, and Sumter Counties. But in Greene County the NDPA candidates for local office were left off the ballot except for absentee voters. In Greene County the only candidates appearing on the ballot were the regular Democratic Party nominees for local offices and they received between 1,699 and 1,709 votes each. It appears that NDPA candidates in Greene County would have won had they been on the ballot for 1,938 ballots were marked for the NDPA “straight ticket.”
On November 15 appellants filed in this Court a motion to show cause why James D. Herndon, Probate Judge, Greene County, should not be held in contempt and why the election in Greene County should not be set aside and a new one held. Later the United States moved in the District Court for relief and that court issued a rule to show cause why the results of the November election in Greene County should not be enjoined. The District Court stayed giving effect to the Greene County election.
We have heard argument on the jurisdictional statement and on the motion to hold Judge Herndon in contempt. On the merits of the appeal, we reverse.
First. The Alabama Corrupt Practices Act requires each candidate within five days “after the announcement of his candidacy for any office” to file a statement showing “the name of not less than one nor more than five persons” chosen to receive, expend, audit, and disburse funds for. his election. Ala. Code, Tit. 17, § 274 (1958).
The disqualification of the NDPA candidates for their alleged failure to satisfy this provision of the Alabama Act implicates Probate Judge Herndon, who was responsible for the preparation of the Greene County ballot which omitted their names.
In this case the black candidates for Greene County offices designated finance committees in February 1968 prior to their entry in the Democratic primary. Appel-lees contend that it was sufficient to justify Judge Hern-don’s omission of the names that the NDPA candidates did not file a second designation of financial committee after May 7, the date of the primary, and the date on which those candidates were nominated by the NDPA. Appellants contend that disqualification for that reason constituted discriminatory enforcement of the Corrupt Practices Act in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Since the names of the white candidates who won the May 7 primary were placed on the ballot, although they also did not file a second designation after that date, appellees clearly have the burden of justifying the denial of ballot places to the black NDPA candidates. Appellees have failed to satisfy that burden.
Alabama law requires all candidates for local office, not selected in primaries, to be nominated by mass meeting on the first Tuesday in May of the election year. Ala. Code, Tit. 17, §§413, 414 (1958). The certificate of nomination sent to Judge Herndon, probate judge for Greene County, on September 4, stated that NDPA nominees had been selected pursuant to a mass meeting.
On September 18 the District Court temporarily restrained the omission from the ballot of NDPA candidates for state and local office. That restraint was dissolved on October 11. Meanwhile counsel for the white Greene County candidates, who was the county solicitor, prompted Judge Herndon to file an affidavit in which he stated that to the “best of [his] knowledge and belief” the NDPA held no local mass meeting on May 7 at which nominations were made, and further that none of the six NDPA candidates “filed or offered to file in [his] office” the designation of financial committee required by the Corrupt Practices Act. Yet when his deposition was taken on December 27, the judge conceded that the mass meeting might have been held without his hearing about it and admitted knowledge that the black candidates had filed designations of financial committee in February. He did not say why in these circumstances the February filing did not suffice for the general election; the designations refer to candidacies for the general election as well as the primary election. Nor did he offer any explanation why if the February filings by the white candidates sufficed for the general election, the filings of the black candidates should be treated differently. The record is therefore utterly devoid of any explanation adequate to satisfy appellees’ burden. It is true that at oral argument in this Court counsel for appellees suggested that the Alabama courts might construe the statutory words — “[wjithin five days after the announcement of his candidacy . . . each candidate for a county office . . . shall file [the designation statement] with the judge of probate” — to require a second filing by losers in a primary who stand at the general election as candidates of another party. But it was not urged, nor could it be on this record, that appellees’ distinction between the black and white candidates was rested on that construction.
We deal here with Fifteenth Amendment rights which guarantee the right of people regardless of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude to cast their votes effectively and with First Amendment rights which include the right to band together for the advancement of political beliefs. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23. While the regulation of corrupt practices in state and federal elections is an important governmental function, we refuse to accept a reading of an Act which gives such a loose meaning to words and such discretionary authority to election officials as to cause Fifteenth and First Amendment rights to be subject to disparate treatment. That risk is compounded here where the penalty is the irrevocable striking of candidates from the ballot without notice or an opportunity for contest and correction.
When the Alabama Act is construed as appellants’ opponents were allowed to construe it without suffering disqualification, we conclude that appellants met the same requirements. Unequal application of the same law to different racial groups has an especially invidious connotation.
Second. In 1967 Alabama passed the Garrett Act (L. 1967, Act 243) barring from the ballot in a general election a candidate for a state, district, or federal office “who does not file a declaration of intention to become a candidate for such office with the secretary of state on or before the first day of March of the year in which such general election is held.” The Garrett Act also requires a declaration of the political party whose nomination the candidate seeks; or if he is not a party-candidate that he will run as an independent. A like provision bars probate judges from printing on ballots the names of candidates for county offices unless they have filed a declaration of intention on or before the prior March 1. Accordingly, appellees justify their disqualification of NDPA candidates in Etowah, Marengo, and Sumter Counties, and Judge Herndon justifies his omission of those candidates from the Greene County ballot, on the ground that they did not comply with the Garrett Act.
Prior to the Garrett Act, every candidate desiring to run in a primary was required to file a declaration of candidacy by March 1. Ala. Code, Tit. 17, § 348 (1958). Independents were exempt from this requirement and they were able to get on the ballot after nomination by a mass meeting held on the first Tuesday in May. Id. §§413, 414. As a result of the Garrett Act, an independent candidate had to decide whether to run at the same time as candidates in the primary made their determination.
The question is whether the Garrett Act is affected by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c (1964 ed., Supp. Ill), which provides that whenever States like Alabama seek to administer “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964,” the State may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that “such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” It is further provided in § 5 that unless and until the District of Columbia court enters such judgment “no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure.”
The Garrett Act is in respects material here on all fours with Whitley v. Williams, 393 U. S. 544, in which we held that a like provision added to the Mississippi Code could not be applied until it had been approved in one of the two ways provided in § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In the Whitley case we dealt with a new Mississippi law which, inter alia, changed the time for filing a petition as an independent candidate from 40 days before the general election to 60 days before the primary election.
We held that this new provision was subject to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as it was aimed “at increasing the difficulty for an independent candidate to gain a position on the general election ballot.” Id., at 570. And we added that that change “might also undermine the effectiveness of voters who wish to elect independent candidates.” Ibid. The increased barriers placed on independent candidates by Alabama's Garrett Act likewise bring it within the purview of § 5 of the Federal Act. The Alabama officials, therefore, acted unlawfully in disqualifying independent candidates in the 1968 election for failure to comply with the Garrett Act.
On the merits, we reverse the District Court and remand the cause with directions (1) to issue an appropriate order requiring the prevailing NDPA candidates in Etowah, Marengo, and Sumter Counties to be treated as duly elected to the offices for which they ran; and (2) to require the state and local officials promptly to conduct a new election in Greene County for the various county offices contested by NDPA candidates, at which election the NDPA candidates for those respective positions shall appear on the ballot.
The motion to hold Judge Herndon in contempt will be disposed of in a separate opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
NDPA ran mostly Negro candidates — 60 out of 67. In Greene County, Negroes of voting age are in a numerical majority — 5,001 Negro, 1,649 white, according to the 1960 census.
Under Alabama law the probate judges have responsibility for preparing ballots to be used in each of the State’s counties.
After first notifying the NDPA of its failure to file a certified list of its candidates with her office, the Secretary of State then notified the party of her willingness to accept such nominations filed by September 5. According to the Secretary of State, the NDPA complied with her condition by filing on time.
The form itself and the instructions on the back of the form make clear that filing of the form fulfills the requirements of the Alabama Corrupt Practices Act for “nomination or election.” In the typical form filed, as printed in the dissenting opinion, the committee designated is named “for the purpose of aiding or promoting my nomination or election!’ (Emphasis supplied.) Moreover, printed instructions on the backside to both “candidates for State offices” and “candidates for County offices” state:
“A copy of this announcement of candidacy filed with the Secretary of State and Probate Judge [s] will meet the requirements of Section 274 of Title 17, Alabama Code of 1940, as amended [Corrupt Practices Act], where the candidate himself (rather than a committee) intends to receive, disburse and report on all monies used in promoting his nomination or election.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 5 contains an alternative procedure of submitting the changed provisions to the Attorney General, in which case they become enforceable upon failure of the Attorney General to object.
These are the offices of County Commissioner for Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4, and Places 1 and 2 on the County Board of Education. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. If the case arose under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, note the source as "United States Supreme Court". If the case arose in a state court, note the source as "State Supreme Court", "State Appellate Court", or "State Trial Court". Do not code the name of the state. | What is the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims"
] | [
31
] | sc |
LEARY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 65.
Argued December 11-12, 1968.
Decided May 19, 1969.
Robert J. Haft argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
John S. Martin, Jr., argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, and Beatrice Rosenberg.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Jonathan Sobeloff and Melvin L. Wulj for the American Civil Liberties Union, and by Joseph S. Oteri for the National Student Assn.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents constitutional questions arising out of the conviction of the petitioner, Dr. Timothy Leary, for violation of two federal statutes governing traffic in marihuana.
The circumstances surrounding petitioner’s conviction were as follows. On December 20, 1965, petitioner left New York by automobile, intending a vacation trip to Yucatan, Mexico. He was accompanied by his daughter and son, both teenagers, and two other persons. On December 22, 1965, the party drove across the International Bridge between the United States and Mexico at Laredo, Texas. They stopped at the Mexican customs station and, after apparently being denied entry, drove back across the bridge. They halted at the American secondary inspection area, explained the situation to a customs inspector, and stated that they had nothing from Mexico to declare. The inspector asked them to alight, examined the interior of the car, and saw what appeared to be marihuana seeds on the floor. The inspector then received permission to search the car and passengers. Small amounts of marihuana were found on the car floor and in the glove compartment. A personal search of petitioner’s daughter revealed a silver snuff box containing semi-refined marihuana and three partially smoked marihuana cigarettes.
Petitioner was indicted and tried before a jury in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, on three counts. First, it was alleged that he had knowingly smuggled marihuana into the United States, in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 176a. Second, it was charged that he had knowingly transported and facilitated the transportation and concealment of marihuana which had been illegally imported or brought into the United States, with knowledge that it had been illegally imported or brought in, all again in violation of § 176a. Third, it was alleged that petitioner was a transferee of marihuana and had knowingly transported, concealed, and facilitated the transportation and concealment of marihuana, without having paid the transfer tax imposed by the Marihuana Tax Act, 26 U. S. C. § 4741 et seq., thereby violating 26 U. S. C. § 4744 (a)(2).
After both sides had presented their evidence and the defense had moved for a judgment of acquittal, the District Court dismissed the first or smuggling count. The jury found petitioner guilty on the other two counts. He was tentatively sentenced to the maximum punishment, pending completion of a study and recommendations to be used by the District Court in fixing his final sentence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 383 F. 2d 851 (1967). That court subsequently denied a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. 392 F. 2d 220 (1968).
We granted certiorari, 392 U. S. 903 (1968), to consider two questions: (1) whether petitioner’s conviction for failing to comply with the transfer tax provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; (2) whether petitioner was denied due process by the application of the part of 21 U. S. C. § 176a which provides that a defendant’s possession of marihuana shall be deemed sufficient evidence that the marihuana was illegally imported or brought into the United States, and that the defendant knew of the illegal importation or bringing in, unless the defendant explains his possession to the satisfaction of the jury. For reasons which follow, we hold in favor of the petitioner on both issues and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I.
We consider first petitioner’s claim that his conviction under the Marihuana Tax Act violated his privilege against self-incrimination.
A.
Petitioner argues that reversal of his Marihuana Tax Act conviction is required by our decisions of last Term in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39 (1968), Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62 (1968), and Haynes v. United States, 390 U. S. 85 (1968). In Marchetti, we held that a plea of the Fifth Amendment privilege provided a complete defense to a prosecution for failure to register and pay the occupational tax on wagers, as required by 26 U. S. C. §§4411-1412. We noted that wagering was a crime in almost every State, and that 26 U. S. C. § 6107 required that lists of wagering taxpayers be furnished to state and local prosecutors on demand. We concluded that compliance with the statute would have subjected petitioner to a “ 'real and appreciable’ ” risk of self-incrimination. We further recognized that the occupational tax was not imposed in “ 'an essentially non-criminal and regulatory area 390 U. S., at 57, but was ''directed to a 'selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities.’ ” We found that it would be inappropriate to impose restrictions on use of the information collected under the statute — a course urged by the Government as a means of removing the impact of the statute upon the privilege against self-incrimination — because of the evident congressional purpose to provide aid to prosecutors. We noted that, unlike the petitioner in Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1 (1948), Marchetti was not required to supply information which had a “public aspect” or was contained in records of the kind he customarily kept.
In Grosso, we held that the same considerations required that a claim of the privilege be a defense to prosecution under 26 U. S. C. § 4401, which imposes an excise tax on proceeds from wagering. And in Haynes we held for the same reasons that assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege provided a defense to prosecution for possession of an unregistered weapon under the National Firearms Act, 26 U. S. C. § 5851, despite the fact that in “uncommon” instances registration under the statute would not be incriminating. See 390 U. S., at 96-97, 99.
B.
In order to understand petitioner’s contention that compliance with the Marihuana Tax Act would have obliged him to incriminate himself within the meaning of the foregoing decisions, it is necessary to be familiar with the statutory scheme. The Marihuana Tax Act has two main subparts. The first imposes a tax on transfers of marihuana, the second an occupational tax upon those who deal in the drug. It is convenient to begin with the occupational tax provisions, 26 U. S. C. §§ 4751-4753.
Section 4751 provides that all persons who “deal in” marihuana shall be subject to an annual occupational tax. Subsections require that specified categories of persons, such as importers, producers, physicians, researchers, and millers pay varying rates of tax per year. See §§4751 (l)-(4), (6). Persons who “deal in” marihuana but do not fall into any of the specified categories are required to pay $3 per year. See § 4751 (5). Section 4753 provides that at the time of paying the tax the taxpayer must “register his name or style and his place or places of business” at the nearest district office of the Internal Revenue Service.
The first of the transfer tax provisions, 26 U. S. C. § 4741, imposes a tax “upon all transfers of marihuana which are required by section 4742 to be carried out in pursuance of written order forms.” Section 4741 further provides that on transfers to persons registered under § 4753 the tax is $1 per ounce, while on transfers to persons not so registered the tax is $100 per ounce. The tax is required to be paid by the transferee “at the time of securing each order form.” With certain exceptions not here relevant, § 4742 makes it unlawful for any person, “whether or not required to pay a special tax and register under sections 4751 to 4753,” to transfer marihuana except pursuant to a written order form to be obtained by the transferee. A regulation, 26 CFR § 152.69, provides that the order form must show the name and address of the transferor and transferee; their § 4753 registration numbers, if they are registered; and the quantity of marihuana transferred. Another regulation, 26 CFR § 152.66, requires the transferee to submit an application containing these data in order to obtain the form. Section 4742 (d) of the Act requires the Internal Revenue Service to “preserve” in its records a duplicate copy of each order form which it issues.
Another statutory provision, 26 U. S. C. § 4773, assures that the information contained in the order form will be available to law enforcement officials. That section provides that the duplicate order forms required to be kept by the Internal Revenue Service shall be open to inspection by Treasury personnel and state and local officials charged with enforcement of marihuana laws, and that upon payment of a fee such officials shall be furnished copies of the forms.
Finally, 26 U. S. C. § 4744 (a) makes it unlawful for a transferee required to pay the § 4741 (a) transfer tax either to acquire marihuana without having paid the tax or to transport, conceal, or facilitate the transportation or concealment of, any marihuana so acquired. Petitioner was convicted under § 4744 (a). He conceded at trial that he had not obtained an order form or paid the transfer tax.
C.
If read according to its terms, the Marihuana Tax Act compelled petitioner to expose himself to a “real and appreciable” risk of self-incrimination, within the meaning of our decisions in Marchetti, Grosso, and Haynes. Sections 4741-4742 required him, in the course of obtaining an order form, to identify himself not only as a transferee of marihuana but as a transferee who had not registered and paid the occupational tax under §§ 4751-4753. Section 4773 directed that this information be conveyed by the Internal Revenue Service to state and local law enforcement officials on request.
Petitioner had ample reason to fear that transmittal to such officials of the fact that he was a recent, unregistered transferee of marihuana “would surely prove a significant ‘link in a chain’ of evidence tending to establish his guilt” under the state marihuana laws then in effect. When petitioner failed to comply with the Act, in late 1965, possession of any quantity of marihuana was apparently a crime in every one of the 50 States, including New York, where petitioner claimed the transfer occurred, and Texas, where he was arrested and convicted. It is true that almost all States, including New York and Texas, had exceptions making lawful, under specified conditions, possession of marihuana by: (1) state-licensed manufacturers and wholesalers; (2) apothecaries; (3) researchers; (4) physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and certain other medical personnel; (5) agents or employees of the foregoing persons or common carriers; (6) persons for whom the drug had been prescribed or to whom it had been given by an authorized medical person; and (7) certain public officials. However, individuals in the first four of these classes are among those compelled to register and pay the occupational tax under §§ 4751-4753; in consequence of having registered, they are required to pay only a $1 per ounce transfer tax under § 4741 (a)(1). It is extremely unlikely that such persons will remain unregistered, for failure to register renders them liable not only to an additional $99 per ounce transfer tax but also to severe criminal penalties. Persons m the last three classes mentioned above appear to be wholly exempt from the order form and transfer tax requirements.
Thus, at the time petitioner failed to comply with the Act those persons who might legally possess marihuana under state law were virtually certain either to be registered under § 4753 or to be exempt from the order form requirement. It follows that - the class of possessors who were both unregistered and obliged to obtain an order form constituted a “selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities.” Since compliance with the transfer tax provisions would have required petitioner unmistakably to identify himself as a member of this “selective” and “suspect” group, we can only decide that when read according to their terms these provisions created a “real and appreciable” hazard of incrimination.
D.
The Government, however, vigorously contends that when the Act is considered together with the accompanying regulations, and in light of existing administrative practice, its incriminatory aspect will be seen to vanish or shrink to less than constitutional proportions. The Government points first to regulations, 26 CFR §§ 152.22, 152.23, added in 1964, which provide that every applicant for registration under §§ 4751-4753 must show that he is legally qualified to deal in marihuana according to the laws of the jurisdiction in which he is operating, and that the district director shall not permit an applicant to register until the director is satisfied that this is true. The Government then cites two other regulations, relating to applications for order forms under § 4742. The first, 26 CFR § 152.67, provides that such applications “[generally . . . shall be signed by the same person or persons signing the application for registration,” but when this is impracticable “they may be signed by another person, provided a power of attorney authorizing such other person to sign the applications . . . has previously been filed . . . .” The second regulation, 26 CFR § 152.68, states that upon receipt of an application the district director “shall” compare the signature on the application “with that appearing on the application for registration or in the power of attorney,” and that “[ujnless the district director is satisfied that the application is authentic it will not be honored.”
The Government asserts that these regulations clearly signify that no person will be permitted to register unless his activities are permissible under the law of his jurisdiction, and that no one will be permitted to obtain ah order form and prepay the transfer tax unless he has registered. The result, the Government contends, is simply to prohibit nonregistrants like petitioner from dealing in marihuana at all. The Government further asserts that the administrative practice of the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Narcotics has always been consistent with this interpretation, though it concedes that there apparently has never been an attempt by a nonregistrant to prepay the tax. The Government does admit uncertainty as to whether the fact of such an attempt would have been communicated to law enforcement officials; however, it points out that nothing in the statute or regulations appears to compel such disclosure. The Government argues that the regulations and administrative practice effectively refute the existence of a substantial hazard of incrimination at the time petitioner acquired marihuana: first, because a non-registrant would have known that he could not obtain an order form and consequently never would have applied; second, because there was no substantial risk that an unsuccessful application would have been brought to the attention of law enforcement officials.
We cannot accept the Government’s argument, for we find that Congress did intend that a nonregistrant should be able to obtain an order form and prepay the transfer tax. This congressional intent appears both from the language of the Act and from its legislative history.
We begin with the words of the statute. Section 4741 (a), when read in conjunction with § 4742, imposes a tax upon every transfer of marihuana, with a few exceptions not here relevant. Section 4741 (a)(1) states that the tax on registrants shall be $1 per ounce and § 4741 (a) (2) that the tax on transfers to nonregistrants shall be $100 per ounce. Section 4741 (b) states that “[s]uch tax shall be paid by the transferee at the time of securing each order form and shall be in addition to the price of such form.” (Emphasis added.) Since § 4741 (b) makes no distinction between the § 4741 (a)(1) tax on transfers to registrants and the § 4741 (a) (2) tax on transfers to nonregistrants, it seems clear that Congress contemplated that nonregistrant as well as registrant transferees should be able to obtain order forms and prepay the tax.
The legislative history also strongly indicates that the Act was intended merely to impose a very high tax on transfers to nonregistrants and not to prohibit such transfers entirely. As a taxing measure, the bill of course originated in the House of Representatives. At the start of the first hearing on the bill, before the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee chairman announced that he had introduced the bill at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury. The transfer provisions of the bill then read essentially as they do now. The first witness to appear before the Committee was the Treasury Department’s Assistant General Counsel, Clinton M. Hester. He began by stating that the bill’s purpose was “not only to raise revenue from the marihuana trafile, but also to discourage the current and widespread undesirable use of marihuana by smokers and drug addicts . . . .” He stated that in form the bill was a “synthesis” of the Harrison Narcotics Act, now 26 U. S. C. § 4701 et seq., and the National Firearms Act, now 26 U. S. C. § 5801 et seq. Both of these statutes compelled dealers in the respective goods to register and pay a special tax. Both prohibited transfer except in pursuance of a written form and imposed a transfer tax. However, the transfer provisions differed in that the Narcotics Act provided that no one except a registrant could legally obtain an order form, see 26 U. S. C. § 4705 (g), while the Firearms Act merely imposed a $200 tax upon each transfer of a firearm covered by the Act.
The Treasury witness explained that the marihuana tax bill generally followed the plan of the Narcotics Act insofar as it required dealers in marihuana to register and prohibited transfers except by order form. But he testified that because of constitutional doubts:
“[a]t this point, this bill, like the National Firearms Act, departs from the plan of the Harrison Narcotic Act which limits the right to purchase narcotic drugs to those persons who are permitted to register under that act. . . .
“[I]n order to obviate the possibility of [an] attack upon the constitutionality of this bill, it, like the National Firearms Act, permits the transfer of marihuana to nonregistered persons upon the payment of a heavy transfer tax. The bill would permit the transfer of marihuana to anyone, but would impose a $100 per ounce tax upon a transfer to a person who might use it for purposes which are dangerous and harmful to the public . . . .”
Mr. Hester was also the first witness before a subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee. There he testified in less detail, stating at different points that the purpose of the transfer provisions was “to discourage the widespread use of the drug by smokers and drug addicts,” “to render extremely difficult the acquisition of marihuana by persons who desire it for illicit uses/’ “to prevent transfers to persons who would use marihuana for undesirable purposes,” and “through the $100 transfer tax to prevent the drug from coming into the hands of those who will put it to illicit uses.”
The House and Senate reports describe the purposes of the transfer provisions largely in the language of Mr. Hester’s testimony. The House report declares that the purpose was “to discourage the widespread use of the drug by smokers and drug addicts,” to “render extremely difficult the acquisition of marihuana by persons who desire it for illicit uses,” and “through the $100 transfer tax to prevent the drug from coming into the hands of those who will put it to illicit uses.” In discussing the issue of constitutionality, the report recites that “[t]he law is . . . settled that Congress has the power to enact a tax which is so heavy as to discourage the transactions or activities taxed” and states that “[t]hese cases sustain the $100 tax imposed . . . upon transfers ... to unregistered persons.” The Senate report, without discussing constitutionality, otherwise states the purpose of the transfer provisions in the very same words as the House report. Thus, the committee reports confirm Mr. Hester’s account of the bill’s purposes. In short, the legislative history fully accords with the statutory language.
Upon this evidence, we have no hesitation in concluding that the interpretation which the Government would give to the transfer provisions is, contrary to the manifest congressional intent that transfers to nonregistrants be taxed, not forbidden. Insofar as the regulations which require comparison of signatures necessarily compel the result urged by the Government, they must be regarded as contrary to the statute and hence beyond the scope of the regulation-making authority which was delegated by Congress. It is true that these regulations were promulgated in 1937, and that Congress re-enacted the entire Act in 1954, while they were in effect. However, the scanty legislative history accompanying that reenactment gives no hint that Congress knew of these particular regulations, much less of the indirect impact which the Government now ascribes to them. As we recently noted in Massachusetts Trustees v. United States, 377 U. S. 235, 241, 242 (1964), congressional reenactment of a statute, even without any apparent knowledge of a particular regulation, can “strengthen to some extent” the regulation’s claim to validity, but re-enactment cannot save a regulation which “contradict [s] the requirements” of the statute itself. When a regulation conflicts with the statute, the fact of subsequent re-enactment “is immaterial, for Congress could not add to or expand [the] statute by impliedly approving the regulation.” Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U. S. 87, 93 (1959).
Nor are we persuaded by the Government’s argument that its construction has been followed by the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Narcotics ever since the passage of the Act, and that this “long-standing” interpretation by the agencies charged with administering the Act should be controlling. We have often recognized that, as a general matter, a long-standing, contemporaneous construction of a statute by the administering agencies is “entitled to great weight,” FTC v. Mandel Bros., 359 U. S. 385, 391 (1959), and will be “show[n] great deference,” Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 (1965). However, in this instance the Government admits that until our decisions last Term in Marchetti, Grosso, and Haynes, the alleged interpretation had been made known only through the regulations themselves, since there apparently had never been an application by a nonregistrant to prepay the transfer tax. Moreover, in its brief in this Court in United States v. Sanchez, 340 U. S. 42 (1950), the United States plainly took the position that the Act imposed only a tax and not a prohibition on transfers to nonregistrants, implying that at that time the alleged administrative construction was unknown even to those charged with representing the United States in this Court. In these circumstances, the alleged administrative construction can furnish no additional support for the Government’s argument.
The foregoing shows that at the time petitioner acquired marihuana he was confronted with a statute which on its face permitted him to acquire the drug legally, provided he paid the $100 per ounce transfer tax and gave incriminating information, and simultaneously with a system of regulations which, according to the Government, prohibited him from acquiring marihuana under any conditions. We have found those regulations so out of keeping with the statute as to be ultra vires. Faced with these conflicting commands, we think petitioner would have been justified in giving precedence to the higher authority: the statute. “ '[L] it eral and full compliance’ with all the statutory requirements” would have entailed a very substantial risk of self-incrimination. See supra, at 16-18.
The United States has not urged us, as it did in Marchetti, Grosso, and Haynes, to avoid this constitutional difficulty by placing restrictions upon the use of information gained under the transfer provisions. We declined to impose use restrictions in those cases because we found that the furnishing of information to interested prosecutors was a “significant element of Congress’ purposes in adopting” the statutes there involved. Marchetti v. United States, supra, at 59 (1968) The text and legislative history of the Marihuana Tax Act plainly disclose a similar congressional purpose. As has been noted, 26 U. S. C. § 4773 requires that copies of order forms be kept available for inspection by state and local officials, and that copies be furnished to such officials on request. The House and Senate reports both state that one objective of the Act was “the development of an adequate means of publicizing dealings in marihuana in order to tax and control the traffic effectively.” In short, we think the conclusion inescapable that the statute was aimed at bringing to light transgressions of the marihuana laws. Hence, as in last Term’s cases, we decline to impose use restrictions and are obliged to conclude that a timely and proper assertion of the privilege should have provided a complete defense to prosecution under § 4744 (a) (2).
E.
There remain the further questions whether this petitioner’s claim of the privilege was timely and whether it was waived. As for timeliness, petitioner did not assert the privilege as a defense to the § 4744 (a) count until his motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals evidently regarded the claim as timely, for it rejected it on the merits both in its original opinion and in its denial of rehearing. See 383 F. 2d, at 870; 392 F. 2d, at 221-222. The Government does not contend that the claim of the privilege was untimely. Petitioner’s trial occurred before our decisions in Marchetti, Grosso, and Haynes, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had recently rejected an identical self-incrimination claim. See Haynes v. United States, 339 F. 2d 30 (1964). Although it would have been preferable for petitioner to have asserted the privilege at trial, we hold that in the circumstances of this case his failure to raise the issue at that time did not amount to a waiver of the privilege. See Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62, 70-71 (1968).
In denying Leary’s petition for rehearing, the Court of Appeals, in addition to holding the privilege generally inapplicable to prosecutions under § 4744 (a), found that petitioner’s claim of the privilege was improper because he “took the stand and affirmatively waived the privilege ... by testifying fully to the details of his acquisition and transportation of marihuana without having paid the tax . . . .” 392 F. 2d, at 222. In relying for that proposition on the statement in Marchetti that our decision in that case would not provide a shield for any taxpayer who was “outside the privilege’s protection,” 390 U. S., at 61, we think the Court of Appeals misconceived the thrust of that dictum. The aspect of the self-incrimination privilege which was involved in Mar-chetti, and which petitioner asserts here, is not the undoubted right of an accused to remain silent at trial. It is instead the right not to be criminally liable for one’s previous failure to obey a statute which required an incriminatory act. Thus, petitioner is not asserting that he had a right to stand mute at his trial but that he cannot be convicted for having failed to comply with the transfer provisions of the Act at the time he acquired marihuana in 1965. His admission at trial that he had indeed failed to comply with the statute was perfectly consistent with the claim that that omission was excused by the privilege. Hence, it could not amount to a waiver of that claim.
The Government suggests that petitioner waived his right to plead self-incrimination in yet another way, by testifying at trial that he had violated the statute for reasons entirely unrelated to fear of self-incrimination. It is true that some portions of petitioner’s testimony indicate that his noncompliance was motivated, at least in part, by his conviction that the Act imposed an illegal tax upon religion or upon the “pursuit of knowledge” and by his belief that, in consequence of the system of regulations and administrative practice described above, he would not be permitted to pay the tax. However, other parts of petitioner’s testimony clearly indicate that he also was influenced by an apprehension that by trying to pay the tax he might incriminate himself. We cannot say that petitioner’s testimony, taken as a whole, amounted to a waiver of the privilege. We conclude that petitioner’s invocation of the privilege was proper and that it should have provided a full defense to the third count of the indictment. Accordingly, we reverse petitioner’s conviction under 26 U. S. C. §4744 (a)(2).
II.
Next, we consider whether, in the circumstances of this case, the application of the presumption contained in 21 U. S. C. § 176a denied petitioner due process of law.
A.
Insofar as here relevant, § 176a imposes criminal punishment upon every person who:
“knowingly, with intent to defraud the United States, imports or brings into the United States marihuana contrary to law ..., or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such marihuana after being imported or brought in, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law . . . .”
A subsequent paragraph establishes the presumption now under scrutiny:
“Whenever on trial for a violation of this subsection, the defendant is shown to have or to have had the marihuana in his possession, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains his possession to the satisfaction of the jury.”
The second count of the indictment charged petitioner with having violated the “transportation” and “concealment” provisions of § 176a. Petitioner admitted at trial that he had acquired marihuana in New York; had driven with it to Laredo, Texas; had continued across the bridge to the Mexican customs station; and then had returned to the United States. He further testified that he did not know where the marihuana he acquired had been grown.
In view of this testimony, the trial court instructed the jury that it might find petitioner guilty of violating § 176a on either of two alternative theories. Under the first or “South-North” theory, a conviction could have been based solely upon petitioner’s own testimony that the marihuana had been brought back from Mexico into the United States and that with knowledge of that fact petitioner had continued to transport it. Under the second or “North-South” theory, the conviction would have depended partly upon petitioner’s testimony that he had transported the marihuana from New York to Texas and partly upon the challenged presumption.
The Government contends that by giving testimony at trial which established all elements of the offense under the “South-North” theory, and by failing to object to the jury instructions on the ground now advanced, petitioner foreclosed himself from raising the point thereafter. We cannot agree. Even assuming that petitioner’s testimony did supply all the evidence required for a valid conviction under the “South-North” theory, the jury nevertheless was told that it could alternatively convict with the aid of the presumption under the “North-South” theory. For all we know, the conviction did rest on that ground. It has long been settled that when a case is submitted to the jury on alternative theories the unconstitutionality of any of the theories requires that the conviction be set aside. See, e. g., Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931).
It is true that petitioner did not object to the jury-instructions on the basis of the presumption’s alleged unconstitutionality. However, he did rely upon that ground in his previous motion for a directed verdict at the close of the prosecution’s case, and urged it again in his subsequent motion for a new trial. Both motions were denied. The Court of Appeals considered petitioner’s constitutional argument on the merits, and rejected it. See 383 F. 2d, at 868-870. In these circumstances, we conclude that the question is properly before us.
B.
By what criteria is the constitutionality of the § 176a presumption to be judged?
Early decisions of this Court set forth a number of different standards by which to measure the validity of statutory presumptions. However, in Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463 (1943), the Court singled out one of these tests as controlling, and the Tot rule has been adhered to in the two subsequent cases in which the issue has been presented. The Tot Court had before it a federal statute which, as construed, made it a crime for one previously convicted of a crime of violence to receive any firearm or ammunition in an interstate transaction. The statute further provided that “the possession of a firearm or ammunition by any such person shall be presumptive evidence that such firearm or ammunition was shipped or transported or received, as the case may be, by such person in violation of this Act.”
The Court, relying upon a prior decision in a civil case, held that the “controlling” test for determining the validity of a statutory presumption was “that there be a rational connection between the facts proved and the fact presumed.” 319 U. S., at 467. The Court stated:
“Under our decisions, a statutory presumption cannot be sustained if there be no rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, if the inference of the one from proof of the other is arbitrary because of lack of connection between the two in common experience. This is not to say that a valid presumption may not be created upon a view of relation broader than that a jury might take in a specific case. But where the inference is so strained as not to have a reasonable relation to the circumstances of life as we know them, it is not competent for the legislature to create it as a rule governing the procedure of courts.” 319 U. S., at 467-468 (footnotes omitted).
The Tot Court reduced to the status of a “corollary” another test which had some support in prior decisions: whether it was more convenient for the defendant or for the Government to supply proof of the ultimate fact which the presumption permitted to be inferred. The Court stated that “[t]he argument from convenience is admissible only where the inference is a permissible one . . . .” 319 U. S., at 469. The Court rejected entirely another suggested test with some backing in the case law, according to which the presumption should be sustained if Congress might legitimately have made it a crime to commit the basic act from which the presumption allowed an inference to be drawn. The Tot Court stated simply that “for whatever reason” Congress had not chosen to make the basic act a crime. Id., at 472.
Applying the “rational connection” test, the Court held the Tot presumption unconstitutional. The Court rejected the contention that because most States forbade intrastate acquisition of firearms without a record of the transaction or registration of ownership it could be inferred merely from possession that an acquisition which did not meet these requirements must have been interstate, noting the alternative possibilities of unlawful intrastate acquisition and interstate shipment prior to the beginning of state regulation. See id., at 468.
The two subsequent cases in which this Court ruled upon the constitutionality of criminal statutory presumptions, United States v. Gainey, 380 U. S. 63 (1965), and United States v. Romano, 382 U. S. 136 (1965), involved companion sections of the Internal Revenue Code dealing with illegal stills. The presumption in Gainey was worded similarly to the one at issue here; it permitted a jury to infer from a defendant’s presence at an illegal still that he was “carrying on” the business of a distiller “unless the defendant explains such presence to the satisfaction of the jury . . . .” See 26 U. S. C. §§ 5601 (a)(4), 5601 (b)(2).
We held that the Gainey presumption should be tested by the “rational connection” standard announced in Tot. We added:
“The process of making the determination of rationality is, by its nature, highly empirical, and in matters not within specialized judicial competence or completely commonplace, significant weight should be accorded the capacity of Congress to amass the stuff of actual experience and cull conclusions from it.” 380 U. S., at 67.
Applying these principles, we sustained the Gainey presumption, finding that it “did no more than ‘accord to the evidence, if unexplained, its natural probative force.’ ” 380 U. S., at 71.
The presumption under attack in United States v. Romano, supra, was identical to that in Gainey except that it authorized the jury to infer from the defendant’s presence at an illegal still that he had possession, custody, or control of the still. See 26 U. S. C. §§ 5601 (a)(1), 5601 (b)(1). We held this presumption invalid. While stating that the result in Gainey was entirely justified because “[pjresence at an operating still is sufficient evidence to prove the charge of ‘carrying on’ because anyone present at the site is very probably connected with the illegal enterprise,” 382 U. S., at 141, we concluded:
“Presence is relevant and admissible evidence in a trial on a possession charge; but absent some showing of the defendant's function at the still, its connection with possession is too tenuous to permit a reasonable inference of guilt — ‘the inference of the one from proof of the other is arbitrary . . . . Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, 467.” Ibid.
The upshot of Tot, Gainey, and Romano is, we think, that a criminal statutory presumption must be regarded as “irrational” or “arbitrary,” and hence unconstitutional, unless it can at least be said with substantial assurance that the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from the proved fact on which it is made to depend. And in the judicial assessment the congressional determination favoring the particular presumption must, of course, weigh heavily.
c.
How does the § 176a presumption fare under these standards?
So far as here relevant, the presumption, quoted supra, at 30, authorizes the jury to infer from a defendant’s possession of marihuana two necessary elements of the crime: (1) that the marihuana was imported or brought into the United States illegally; and (2) that the defendant knew of the unlawful importation or bringing in. Petitioner argues that neither inference is valid, citing undisputed testimony at his trial to the effect that marihuana will grow anywhere in the United States, and that some actually is grown here. The Government contends, on the other hand, that both inferences are permissible. For reasons that follow, we hold unconstitutional that part of the presumption which relates to a defendant’s knowledge of illegal importation. Consequently, we do not reach the question of the validity of the “illegal importation” inference.
With regard to the “knowledge” presumption, we believe that Tot and Romano require that we take the statute at face value and ask whether it permits conviction upon insufficient proof of “knowledge,” rather than inquire whether Congress might have made possession itself a crime. In order thus to determine the constitutionality of the “knowledge” inference, one must have direct or circumstantial data regarding the beliefs of marihuana users generally about the source of the drug they consume. Such information plainly is “not within specialized judicial competence or completely commonplace,” United States v. Gainey, supra, at 67. Indeed, the presumption apparently was enacted to relieve the Government of the burden of having to adduce such evidence at every trial, and none was introduced by the prosecution at petitioner’s trial. Since the determination of the presumption’s constitutionality is “highly empirical,” ibid., it follows that we must canvass the available, pertinent data.
Of course, it must be kept in mind that “significant weight should be accorded the capacity of Congress to amass the stuff of actual experience and cull conclusions from it.” Ibid. However, it quickly becomes apparent that the legislative record does not supply an adequate basis upon which to judge the soundness of the “knowledge” part of the presumption. We have therefore taken other materials into account as well, in an effort to sustain the presumption. In so doing, we have not confined ourselves to data available at the time the presumption was enacted in 1956, but have also considered more recent information, in order both to obtain a broader general background and to ascertain whether the intervening years have witnessed significant changes which might bear upon the presumption’s validity.
As has been noted, we do not decide whether the presumption of illegal importation is itself constitutional. However, in view of the paucity of direct evidence as to the beliefs of marihuana smokers generally about the source of their marihuana, we have found it desirable to survey data concerning the proportion of domestically consumed marihuana which is of foreign origin, since in the absence of better information the proportion of marihuana actually imported surely is relevant in deciding whether marihuana possessors “know” that their marihuana is imported.
D.
Since the importation question is a subsidiary one, we take it up first, beginning, of course, with the legislative history of § 176a. The House and Senate committee reports and the floor debates are relatively unhelpful. More informative are the records of extensive hearings before House and Senate committees. Near the outset of the Senate committee hearings, the then Commissioner of Narcotics, Harry J. Anslinger, estimated that 90% of all marihuana seized by federal authorities had been smuggled from Mexico, and that although “there is considerable volunteer growth from old plantings in the Middle West . . . , [t]here is very little of the local land used because it just does not have the advantage of the long summer growing, and [domestic marihuana] is not as potent as the Mexican drug.” A number of officials responsible for enforcing the narcotics laws in various localities estimated that a similar proportion of the marihuana consumed in their areas was of Mexican origin.
On the other hand, written material inserted in the record of the Senate hearings included former testimony of an experienced federal customs agent before another Senate committee, to the effect that high-quality marihuana was being grown near the Texas cities of Laredo and Brownsville. A written report of the Ohio Attorney General recited that marihuana “may grow unnoticed along roadsides and vacant lots in many parts of the country,” and a Philadelphia Police Academy bulletin stated that: “Plenty of [marihuana] is found growing in this city.”
Examination of periodicals and books published since the enactment of the presumption leaves no doubt that in more than a dozen intervening years there have been great changes in the extent and nature of marihuana use in this country. With respect to quantity, one readily available statistic is indicative: the amount of marihuana seized in this country by federal authorities has jumped from about 3,400 pounds in 1956 to about 61,400 pounds in 1967. With regard to nature of use, the 1955 hearing records and other reports portray marihuana smoking as at that time an activity almost exclusively of unemployed or menially employed members of racial minorities. Current periodicals and books, on the other hand, indicate that marihuana smoking has become common on many college campuses and among persons who have voluntarily “dropped out” of American society in protest against its values, and that marihuana smokers include a sizeable number of young professional persons.
Despite these undoubted changes, the materials which we have examined point quite strongly to the conclusion that most domestically consumed marihuana is still of foreign origin. During the six years 1962-1967, some 79% of all marihuana seized by federal authorities was seized in attempted smuggling at ports and borders. The Government informs us that a considerable part of the internally seized marihuana bore indications of foreign origin. While it is possible that these facts reflect only the deployment of federal narcotics forces, rather than the actual proportion of imported to domestic marihuana, almost all of the authorities which we have con-suited confirm that the preponderance of domestically consumed marihuana is grown in Mexico.
Petitioner makes much of statistics showing the number of acres of domestic marihuana destroyed annually by state and federal authorities, pointing out that if harvested the destroyed acreage could in each year have accounted for all marihuana estimated to have been consumed in the United States, and that no one knows how many acres escape destruction. However, several factors weaken this argument from domestic growth. First, the number of acres annually destroyed declined by a factor of three between 1959 and 1967, while during the same period the consumption of marihuana, as measured by federal seizures, rose twenty-fold. Assuming constant diligence on the part of those charged with destruction, this would indicate that in 1967 a much smaller share of the market was domestically supplied than in 1959. Second, while the total number of acres annually destroyed has indeed been large enough to furnish all domestically consumed marihuana, the state-by-state breakdowns which are available for the years 1964-1967 reveal that in each of those years more than 95% of the destroyed acreage was in two midwestern states, Illinois and Minnesota. The large, recurrent marihuana acreages discovered in those States can plausibly be ascribed to the “volunteer growth from old plantings in the Middle West” about which Commissioner Anslinger testified, while illicit cultivators of marihuana would be likely to choose States with sparser populations and more favorable climates. Third and last, reports of the Bureau of Narcotics and testimony of its agents indicate that in its far-reaching investigations the Bureau has never encountered a system for distributing sizeable quantities of domestically grown marihuana. In contrast, the Bureau has found evidence of many large-scale distribution systems with sources in Mexico.
E.
The Government urges that once it is concluded that most domestically consumed marihuana comes from abroad — a conclusion which we think is warranted by the data just examined — we must uphold the “knowledge” part of the presumption in light of this Court’s decision in Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U. S. 178 (1925). In that case, the Court sustained a presumption which was virtually identical to the one at issue here except that the forbidden substance was smoking opium rather than marihuana. With respect to the inference of knowledge from possession which was authorized by that presumption, the Court said:
“Legitimate possession [of opium], unless for medicinal use, is so highly improbable that to say to any person who obtains the outlawed commodity, ‘since you are bound to know that it cannot be brought into this country at all, except under regulation for medicinal use, you must at your peril ascertain and be prepared to show the facts and circumstances which rebut, or tend to rebut, the natural inference of unlawful importation, or your knowledge of it,’ is not such an unreasonable requirement as to cause it to fall outside the constitutional power of Congress.” 268 U. S., at 184.
The Government contends that Yee Hem requires us to read the § 176a presumption as intended to put every marihuana smoker on notice that he must be prepared to show that any marihuana in his possession was not illegally imported, and that since the possessor is the person most likely to know the marihuana’s origin it is not unfair to require him to adduce evidence on that point. However, we consider that this approach, which closely resembles the test of comparative convenience in the production of evidence, was implicitly abandoned in Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463 (1943). As was noted previously, the T-ot Court confronted a presumption which allowed a jury to infer from possession of a firearm that it was received in interstate commerce. Despite evidence that most States prohibited unregistered and unrecorded acquisition of firearms, the Court did not read the statute as notifying possessors that they must be prepared to show that they received their weapons in intrastate transactions, as Yee Hem would seem to dictate. Instead, while recognizing that “the defendants ... knew better than anyone else whether they acquired the firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce,” 319 U. S., at 469, the Court held that because of the danger of overreaching it was incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate that the inference was permissible before the burden of coming forward could be placed upon the defendant. This was a matter which the Yee Hem Court either thought it unnecessary to consider or assumed when it described the inference as “natural.”
F.
We therefore must consider in detail whether the available evidence supports the conclusion that the “knowledge” part of the § 176a presumption is constitutional under the standard established in Tot and adhered to in Gainey and Romano — that is, whether it can be said with substantial assurance that one in possession of marihuana is more likely than not to know that his marihuana was illegally imported.
Even if we assume that the previously assembled data are sufficient to justify the inference of illegal importation, see supra, at 44, it by no means follows that a majority of marihuana possessors "know” that their marihuana was illegally imported. Any such proposition would depend upon an intermediate premise: that most marihuana possessors are aware of the level of importation and have deduced that their own marihuana was grown abroad. This intermediate step might be thought justified by common sense if it were proved that little or no marihuana is grown in this country. Short of such a showing, not here present, we do not believe that the inference of knowledge can be sustained solely because of the assumed validity of the “importation” presumption.
Once it is established that a significant percentage of domestically consumed marihuana may not have been imported at all, then it can no longer be postulated, without proof, that possessors will be even roughly aware of the proportion actually imported. We conclude that in order to sustain the inference of knowledge we must find on the basis of the available materials that a majority of marihuana possessors either are cognizant of the apparently high rate of importation or otherwise have become aware that their marihuana was grown abroad.
We can imagine five ways in which a possessor might acquire such knowledge: (1) he might be aware of the proportion of domestically consumed marihuana which is smuggled from abroad and deduce that his was illegally imported; (2) he might have smuggled the marihuana himself; (3) he might have learned by indirect means that the marihuana consumed in his locality or furnished by his supplier was smuggled from abroad; (4) he might have specified foreign marihuana when making his “buy,” or might have been told the source of the marihuana by his supplier; (5) he might be able to tell the source from the appearance, packaging, or taste of the marihuana itself.
We treat these five possibilities seriatim, in light of the available materials, beginning in each instance with the legislative record. We note at the outset that although we have been able to discover a good deal of relevant secondary evidence, we have found none of the best kind possible — testimony of marihuana users about their own beliefs as to origin, or studies based upon interviews in which users were asked about this matter. The committee hearings which preceded passage of § 176a included testimony by many marihuana smokers, but none was ever asked whether he knew the origin of the marihuana he smoked. It should also be kept in mind that the great preponderance of marihuana smokers are “occasional” rather than “regular” users of the drug, and that “occasional” smokers appear to be arrested disproportionately often, due to their inexpertness in taking precautions. “Occasional” users are likely to be less informed and less particular about the drug they smoke; hence, it is less probable that they will have learned its source in any of the above ways.
The first possibility is that a possessor may have known the proportion of imported to domestic marihuana and have deduced that his own marihuana was grown abroad. The legislative record is of no assistance in evaluating this possibility. Such indirect evidence as we have found points to the conclusion that while most marihuana users probably know that some marihuana comes from Mexico, it is also likely that the great majority either have no knowledge about the proportion which is imported or believe that the proportion is considerably lower than may actually be the case.
The second possibility is that a possessor may know the origin of his marihuana because he smuggled it into the United States himself. The legislative record is unhelpful in estimating the proportion of possessors who fall into this class. Other sources indicate that there are a considerable number of smokers who “smuggle their own,” but that the great majority of- possessors have obtained their marihuana from suppliers in this country.
The legislative record is also uninformative about the possibility that a possessor may have learned the source of his marihuana by indirect means. Other sources reveal that imported marihuana usually passes through a number of hands before reaching the consumer, and that the distribution system is kept secret. It would appear that relatively few consumers know the origin of their marihuana by indirect means.
The fourth possibility is that the possessor may have specified foreign marihuana when making his purchase or may have been told by his supplier that the marihuana was grown abroad. The legislative record is somewhat more helpful with respect to this possibility, for it does contain statements to the effect that Mexican marihuana is more potent than domestic and is consequently preferred by smokers. However, the legislative record also contains testimony by a customs agent that Texas marihuana is as “good” as that from Mexico. Most authorities state that Mexican marihuana generally does have greater intoxicating power than domestic marihuana, due to the higher temperatures and lower humidity usually encountered in Mexico. There are some indications that smokers are likely to prefer Mexican marihuana, but there is nothing to show that purchasers commonly specify Mexican marihuana when making a “buy.” It appears that suppliers of marihuana occasionally volunteer the place of origin, but we have found no hint that this is usually done, and there are indications that if the information is not volunteered the buyer may be reluctant to ask, for fear of being thought an informer. We simply are unable to estimate with any accuracy, on the basis of these data, what proportion of marihuana possessors have learned the origin of their marihuana in this way. It is certainly not a majority; but whether it is a small minority or a large one we are unable to tell.
The fifth possibility is that a smoker may be able to tell the source of his marihuana from its appearance, packaging, or taste. As for appearance, it seems that there is only one species of marihuana, and that even experts are unable to tell by eye where a particular sample was grown. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did find in Caudillo v. United States, 253 F. 2d 513 (1958), on the basis of trial testimony, that “unmanicured” or “rough” marihuana — that is, marihuana containing some seeds and stems, as well as leaves — was much more likely to come from Mexico than from California; this was because the presence of seeds implied that the plant had been allowed to mature and evidence showed that California growers almost always harvested the plant before that stage. However, we have found nothing to indicate that this distinction holds good in other areas of the country, or that marihuana possessors are likely to realize its significance.
With respect to packaging, there is evidence that Mexican marihuana is commonly compressed into distinctive “bricks” and then wrapped in characteristically Mexican paper. Yet even if it is assumed that most Mexican marihuana bears such distinguishing marks when first brought into this country, there is no indication that they normally are still present when it reaches the consumer. The packaging method just mentioned apparently is intended to facilitate transportation of relatively large quantities of marihuana. A “brick” appears usually to contain about one kilogram of marihuana, and relatively few consumer sales will involve such a large amount, since a kilogram of marihuana will furnish some 3,300 marihuana cigarettes. Smokers appear usually to purchase marihuana by the “bag” — about one-fifth ounce; by the “can” — about one ounce; or by the pound. Hence, after importation “[t]he wholesalers will repackage the marihuana into smaller packages, . . . and they will do it in various ways.” We infer that only a small percentage of smokers are likely to learn of the drug’s origin from its packaging.
With respect to taste, the Senate hearing record contains the statement of a federal customs agent that: “A good marihuana smoker can probably tell good marihuana from bad.” As has been seen, there is a preponderance of opinion to the effect that Mexican marihuana is more potent than domestic. One authority states that purchasers of marihuana commonly sample the product before making a “buy.” However, the agent quoted above also asserted that some “good” marihuana was grown in Texas. And the account of the sampling custom further states that tasting is merely a ritual since “[ujsually the intoxication will not differ much from one cigarette to another . . ..” Once again, we simply are unable to estimate what proportion of marihuana possessors are capable of “placing” the marihuana in their possession by its taste, much less what proportion actually have done so by the time they are arrested.
G.
We conclude that the “knowledge” aspect of the § 176a presumption cannot be upheld without making serious incursions into the teachings of Tot, Gainey, and Romano. In the context of this part of the statute, those teachings require that it be determined with substantial assurance that at least a majority of marihuana possessors have learned of the foreign origin of their marihuana through one or more of the ways discussed above.
We find it impossible to make such a determination. As we have seen, the materials at our disposal leave us at large to estimate even roughly the proportion of marihuana possessors who have learned in one way or another the origin of their marihuana. It must also be recognized that a not inconsiderable proportion of domestically consumed marihuana appears to have been grown in this country, and that its possessors must be taken to have “known,” if anything, that their marihuana was not illegally imported. In short, it would be no more than speculation were we to say that even as much as a majority of possessors “knew” the source of their marihuana.
Nor are these deficiencies in the foundation for the “knowledge” presumption overcome by paying, as we do, the utmost deference to the congressional determination that this presumption was warranted. For Congress, no less than we, is subject to constitutional requirements, and in this instance the legislative record falls even shorter of furnishing an adequate foundation for the “knowledge” presumption than do the more extensive materials we have examined.
We thus cannot escape the duty of setting aside petitioner’s conviction under Count 2 of this indictment.
For the reasons stated in Part I of this opinion we reverse outright the judgment of conviction on Count 3 of the indictment. For the reasons stated in Part II, we reverse the judgment of conviction on Count 2 and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We are constrained to add that nothing in what we hold today implies any constitutional disability in Congress to deal with the marihuana traffic by-other means.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren joins Part II of the opinion of the Court and, considering himself bound by the decisions in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39 (1968), Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62 (1968), and Haynes v. United States, 390 U. S. 85 (1968), concurs in the result as to Part I.
Insofar as here relevant, § 2 (h) of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 70 Stat. 570, 21 U. S. C. § 176a, provides:
‘'Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whoever, knowingly, with intent to defraud the United States, imports or brings into the United States marihuana contrary to law, or smuggles or clandestinely introduces into the United States marihuana which should have been invoiced, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such marihuana after being imported or brought in, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law, or whoever conspires to do any of the foregoing acts, shall be imprisoned ....
“Whenever on trial for a violation of this subsection, the defendant is shown to have or to have had the marihuana in his possession, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains his possession to the satisfaction of the jury.”
See n. 1, supra.
Insofar as here relevant, 26 U. S. C. §4744 (a) provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person who is a transferee required to pay the transfer tax imposed by section 4741 (a)—
“(1) to acquire or otherwise obtain any marihuana without having paid such tax, or
“(2) to transport or conceal, or in any manner facilitate the transportation or concealment of, any marihuana so acquired or obtained.”
The statutory scheme of the Marihuana Tax Act is analyzed in more detail at 14-16,' infra.
Petitioner had testified without contradiction that he had obtained the marihuana in New York, and the District Court apparently reasoned that an article taken out of the United States could not be “smuggled” back into the country, as charged by the indictment. See Appendix 60a; 2 Transcript of Record 620, 523-526; cf. United States v. Claybourn, 180 F. Supp. 448, 451-452 (1960).
See 18 U. S. C. § 4208. Petitioner was tentatively sentenced to 20 years in prison and a §20,000 fine for violation of § 176a, and to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine for violation of § 4744 (a) (2) (see 26 U. S. C. §7237 (a)), the prison sentences to ran consecutively. The lowest penalty for conviction under § 176a is five years' imprisonment, and no suspension of sentence, probation, or parole is permitted following such a conviction. See 26 U. S. C. § 7237 (d).
390 U. S., at 48, quoting from Reg. v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, 330 (1861).
390 U. S., at 57, quoting from Albertson v. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, 79 (1965).
Ibid.
The transferor is secondarily liable for the tax. See 26 U. S. C. §4741 (b).
The exceptions include transfers by or under prescription of a medical practitioner; legal exportation to foreign countries; transfers to government officials; and transfers of marihuana seeds to persons registered under § 4753.
26 U. S. C. § 6107, which requires that a list of “persons who have paid special taxes” under subtitles D and E of the Internal Revenue Code be kept for public inspection in each principal Internal Revenue office and that the list be furnished to state and local prosecutors on request, apparently does not apply to payors of transfer taxes. See Haynes v. United States, 390 U. S. 85, 99-100 (1968).
The relevant text of § 4744 (a) is set out in n. 3, supra.
Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39, 48 (1968).
It is also possible that compliance with the Act also would have created a substantial risk of incrimination under 21 U. S. C. § 176a, the other federal statute which petitioner was convicted of violating (the relevant text of § 176a is reproduced in n. 1, supra). However, the danger of incrimination under state law is so plain that this possibility need not be explored further.
At the time petitioner failed to comply with the Act, 48 States and the District of Columbia had on their books in some form essentially the provisions of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act. See 9B Uniform Laws Ann. 409-410 (1966). Section 2 of that Act states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to . . . possess . . . any narcotic drug, except as authorized in this act.” Section 1 (14) defines “narcotic drugs” to include marihuana (“cannabis”). The remaining two States, California and Pennsylvania, also have statutes making it a crime to possess marihuana- See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11530 (1964); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 35, §§ 780-2 (g), 780-4 (q) (1964).
In 1965, New York and Texas had in effect statutory provisions substantially identical to the above sections of the Uniform Act. For New York, see N. Y. Pub. Health Law §§ 3301, subd. 38 (Supp. 1968-1969), 3305 (1954); for Texas, see Tex. Pen. Code, Art. 725b, §§ 1 (14), 2 (1961). In New York possession of any amount of marihuana was a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year’s imprisonment. See N. Y. Pen. Law § 1751-a (1) (Supp. 1966). See also id,., § 1751, subd. 2 (Supp. 1966). In Texas, such possession was a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than two years and not more than life. See Tex. Pen. Code, Art. 725b, §23 (1) (1961).
See, e. g., Uniform Narcotic Drug Act §§3-11, 9B Uniform Laws Ann. 472-496 (1966); N. Y. Pub. Health Law §§3310, 3320-3325, 3330-3333 (1954 and Supp. 1968-1969); Tex. Pen. Code, Art. 725b, §§5-12 (1961).
See 26 U. S. C. §§4751 (l)-(6).
See 26 U. S. C. §§4755 (a)(1), 7237 (a).
26 U. S. C. §§ 4742 (b) (l)-(2) exempt persons who receive marihuana under medical prescription or directly from a medical practitioner. Title 26 U. S. C. § 4742 (b) (4) exempts transfers to public officials. And the design of the Act strongly suggests that a delivery of marihuana to an employee or agent of a registrant is considered a “transfer” to the registrant himself, see 26 U. S. C. § 4755 (b) (3), 26 CFR §§ 152.41, 152.42, and that delivery to a common carrier is considered a “transfer” to the addressee. See 26 U. S. C. §4755 (b)(2), 26 CFR § 152.127 (c).
The Government argues that the $100 per ounce tax was intended to be collected only civilly from those found to have engaged in illegal transfers. See Brief for the United States 19, n. 23, and 29. See also United States v. Sanchez, 340 U. S. 42 (1950).
After our decisions in Marchetti, Grosso, and Haynes, district directors were instructed that applications by nonregistrants should not be disclosed but simply returned to the applicants. See Brief for the United States 17, n. 16.
See n. 10, supra.
See Hearings on H. R. 6385 before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1937).
See id., at 3-5.
Id., at 7.
Ibid.
Hearings on H. It. 6385 before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1937). The doubts about the bill’s constitutionality were occasioned by the dissenting opinions in United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 95 (1919), and Nigro v. United States, 276 U. S. 332, 354, 357 (1928). See Hearings on H. R. 6385, supra, at 9.
Hearings on H. It. 6906 before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Finance, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1937).
Id., at 6.
Ibid.
Id., at 7.
H. R. Rep. No. 792, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1937).
Id., at 2.
Ibid.
Id., at 3.
Ibid.
See S. Rep. No. 900, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2-3 (1937).
The regulations, 26 CFR, §§ 152.22, 152.23, see supra, at 18-19, which limit registration under § 4753 to persons whose marihuana dealings are legal under relevant state and local laws, do not of themselves require the result urged by the Government. In fact, there is strong support in the legislative history for the proposition that illicit consumers of marihuana like petitioner are not entitled to register. The House and Senate reports and the testimony of Mr. Hester before a subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee all state, in identical language, that “[u]nder [the bill’s] provisions all legitimate handlers of marihuana are required to pay occupational taxes . . . .” H. R. Rep. No. 792, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1937); S. Rep. No. 900, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1937) ; Hearings on H. R. 6906 before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Finance, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1937). In his testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Hester stated explicitly that “those who would consume marihuana are not eligible to register under the bill . . . .” Hearings on H. R. 6385 before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1937).
See H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., a325 (1954); S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 482-483 (1954).
See also 1 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 5.07 (1958), and cases there cited.
See generally id., § 5.06.
See Brief for the United States in No. 81, O. T. 1950, United States v. Sanchez, at 28-29.
Any other holding would give rise to additional knotty questions, such as whether petitioner’s nonpayment of the transfer tax should be excused because of his actual or assumed reliance upon the erroneous administrative construction of the statute, under which he would not have been permitted to pay. Cf. James v. United States, 366 U. S. 213 (1961).
Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62, 65 (1968), quoting from Albertson v. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, 78 (1965).
See also Grosso v. United States, supra, at 69; Haynes v. United States, supra, at 99-100 (1968).
H. R. Rep. No. 792, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1937); S. Rep. No. 900, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1937).
See Appendix 87a-88a, 89a.
See Appendix 86a-89a. Of course, a holding that petitioner waived his right to plead self-incrimination by his reliance on the erroneous administrative interpretation would require consideration of the further question mentioned in n. 43, supra: whether such reliance should provide a defense.
When first asked on direct examination why he had not paid the transfer tax, petitioner stated: “Well, I knew that I couldn’t get such a permission. ... I also know that if I had applied for such a [transfer tax] stamp I would probably subject myself to investigation . . . .” Appendix 86a. In response to a similar subsequent question, petitioner said: “I was very certain that I would not be able to pay the tax on the marihuana and that not only would it be taken away from me but I would be subjected to action.” Appendix 87a. And when asked whether he had “an honest belief that you could not obtain [an order form],” petitioner replied: “I had a strong and honest belief that I could not get it and it would just cause a lot of publicity and trouble for both the government and myself. And I am not trying to cause trouble Appendix 89a.
As has been noted, the first count charged him with smuggling in violation of § 176a, but the District Court dismissed that count. See supra, at 11 and n. 4.
See Appendix 90a.
With respect to this theory, the trial judge stated near the end of his charge to the jury:
“Now, you might have some difficulty with the question on Count 2 ... .
“I mention this a second time because you might be confused about the question of importation.
“We are not talking necessarily about the importation or what the government contends was importation here at the bridge.
“The defendant has told us that he received the marihuana in New York. This statute, of course, is of application throughout the land and the presumption would still apply that the narcotic had been imported illegally and that he knew it had been imported illegally unless he explains his possession to the satisfaction of the jury.” Appendix 103a-104a.
See 2 Transcript of Record 612-614.
See 1 Transcript of Record 198-200; 2 Transcript of Record 492, 649.
We think it irrelevant that petitioner himself testified at trial that he had no knowledge of the marihuana’s origin. The Government put in no affirmative evidence of knowledge, and the jury was instructed that it could convict under the “North-South” theory, relying upon the § 176a presumption to permit an inference of knowledge. The trial judge did not mention petitioner’s testimony on this point in his instructions to the jury. Since the presumption is by its terms rebuttable, the intended implication must have been that the jury could convict on the basis of the presumption only if it disbelieved the testimony. Cf. Caudillo v. United States, 253 F. 2d 513, 518 (1958).
One test was whether there was a “rational connection” between the basic fact and the presumed fact. See Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35 (1910); McFarland v. American Sugar Rfg. Co., 241 U. S. 79 (1916); Western & Atl. R. Co. v. Henderson, 279 U. S. 639 (1929); cf. Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U. S. 178 (1925). A second was whether the legislature might have made it a crime to do the thing from which the presumption authorized an inference. See Ferry v. Ramsey, 277 U. S. 88 (1928). A third was whether it would be more convenient for the defendant or for the prosecution to adduce evidence of the presumed fact. See Morrison v. California, 291 U. S. 82 (1934); cf. Rossi v. United States, 289 U. S. 89 (1933); Yee Hem v. United States, supra.
Section 2 (f) of the Federal Firearms Act, 52 Stat. 1251, 15 U. S. C. §902 (f).
Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35 (1910).
See n. 56, supra.
See ibid.
For example, it was argued in Tot that in order to regulate interstate commerce in firearms Congress might have prohibited possession of all firearms by persons who had been convicted of crimes of violence.
The Court declared that there was even less reason to conclude from possession that the acquisition had occurred subsequent to the effective date of the Firearms Act.
Like the Court in Tot, we limited ourselves in Romano to consideration of the crime Congress actually had defined. We observed that Congress had not chosen to make presence at an illegal still a crime in itself, but had only “declar[ed] presence to be sufficient evidence to prove the crime of possession beyond reasonable doubt,” and concluded that “[t]his approach obviously fails under the standards traditionally applied to such legislation.” 382 U. S., at 144.
Since we find that the § 176a presumption is unconstitutional under this standard, we need not reach the question whether a criminal presumption which passes muster when so judged must also satisfy the criminal “reasonable doubt” standard if proof of the crime charged or an essential element thereof depends upon its use. Cf. United States v. Adams, 293 F. Supp. 776, 783-784 (1968). See also United States v. Romano, supra, at 140-144; Comment, The Constitutionality of Statutory Criminal Presumptions, 34 U. Chi. L. Rev. 141 (1966).
The presumption also permits inference of a third element: that the importation or bringing in was with intent to defraud the United States. The permissibility of this inference was not one of the questions presented in Leary’s petition for certiorari, and on the view we take of this branch of the case we have no occasion to consider it.
See 1 Transcript of Record 165, 186-187. Petitioner attempted to introduce further evidence concerning the proportion of domestically consumed marihuana which in fact has been grown in the United States, but the District Court held it irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. See 2 Transcript of Record 517.
See supra, at 34 and n. 63.
A statute based upon a legislative declaration of facts is subject to constitutional attack on the ground that the facts no longer exist; in ruling upon such a challenge a court must, of course, be free to re-examine the factual declaration. See Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135, 154-155 (1921); Communist Party v. SACB, 367 U. S. 1, 110-114 (1961).
See S. Rep. No. 1997, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 7, 13 (1956); H. R. Rep. No. 2388, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 3, 6 (1956); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2546, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 14 (1956); 102 Cong. Rec. 269, 271, 9015, 10688, 12166.
Hearings on Traffic in, and Control of, Narcotics, Barbiturates, and Amphetamines before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means, 84th Cong. (1955-1956) (hereinafter cited as House Hearings); Hearings on Illicit Narcotics Traffic before the Subcommittee on Improvements in the Federal Criminal Code of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955) (hereinafter cited as Senate Hearings).
Senate Hearings 18.
See House Hearings 618,1071; Senate Hearings 2384, 2471-2472, 4370, 4630. See also House Hearings 889; Senate Hearings 2893, 3488-3490; 102 Cong. Rec. 269, 271.
See Senate Hearings 3488-3489.
Id., at 4814.
Id., at 599. See also Senate Hearings 4167.
Compare Bureau of Narcotics, Report on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs 67 (1956), with id., at 43 (1967). These seizures are estimated to represent 10% of the marihuana actually smuggled into the United States. See Appendix 92a.
See, e. g., J. Rosevear, Pot: A Handbook of Marihuana 118 (1967); Bouquet, Cannabis, Parts 1II-V, 3 U. N. Bull, on Narcotics, No. 1, 22, 32-33 (1951); Mayor’s Committee on Marihuana, The Marihuana Problem in the City of New York 17-25 (1944); Blum, Mind-Altering Drugs and Dangerous Behavior: Dangerous Drugs, in President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Narcotics and Drug Abuse 21, 24 (1967).
See, e. g., Rosevear, supra, at 117-131; Bureau of Narcotics, Report on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs 2, 40 (1966); Blum, supra, at 24; Cahn, The User and the Law, in J. Simmons (ed.), Marihuana: Myths and Realities (1967); McGlothlin, Toward a Rational View of Marihuana, in Simmons (ed.), supra, at 195-198.
See Bureau of Narcotics, Report on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs 66 (1962); id., at 78 (1963); id., at 84 (1964); id., at 51 (1965); id., at 45 (1966); id., at 43 (1967).
See Brief for the United States 40.
See, e. g., Bureau of Narcotics, Report on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs 36 (1963); id., at 30 (1964); Mandel, Myths and Realities of Marihuana Pushing, in J. Simmons (ed.), Marihuana: Myths and Realities 58-110 (1967); President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Report: The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 213 (1967); Simmons (ed.), supra, at 233; United States Government, Report on the Working of the International Treaties on Narcotic Drugs 17 (1966); id., at 24-25 (1967). Contra, see Transcript of Pretrial Hearing, July 15, 1968, United States v. Adams, 293 F. Supp. 776 (1968), at 67, 76 (testimony of Dr. Richard Schultes, Director of Harvard Botanic Museum) (hereafter 1 Transcript). See also J. Rosevear, Pot: A Handbook of Marihuana 35, 119-120 (1967).
In 1967, 1,466 acres were destroyed. See United States Government, Report on the Working of the International Treaties on Narcotic Drugs 9 (1967). Accepting the Bureau of Narcotics’ lowest estimate of yield per acre, see Brief for the United States 38, n. 43, this acreage would have supplied over 1,200,000 pounds of marihuana. This is enough for about 1,800,000,000 marihuana cigarettes. See infra, at 51 and n. 109.
Compare Bureau of Narcotics, Report on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs 12 (1959), with United States Government, Report on the Working of the International Treaties on Narcotic Drugs 9 (1967). The decline was steady.
Compare Bureau of Narcotics, Report on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs 43 (1959), with id., at 43 (1967).
See n. 82, supra.
See Bureau of Narcotics, Report on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs 17 (1965); United States Government, Report on the Working of the International Treaties on Narcotic Drugs 10 (1966); id., at 9 (1967).
See supra, at 39.
Most authorities believe that more potent marihuana can be grown in a hot, dry climate. See infra, at 49 and n. 102.
See Bureau of Narcotics, Reports on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs 1956-1967; Transcript of Pretrial Hearing, July 24, 1968, United States v. Adams, 293 F. Supp. 776 (1968), at 37-45 (hereafter 2 Transcript); United States Government, Report on the Working of the International Treaties on Narcotic Drugs 17 (1966); id., at 24-25 (1967). But cf. Senate Hearings 3488-3490.
See, e. g., Bureau of Narcotics, Report on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs 23 (1965) (seizure of about 1,800 pounds of Mexican marihuana), 23-24 (seizure of about one ton of Mexican marihuana), 24 (seizure of about 3% tons of Mexican, marihuana); id. (1966), at 17 (seizure of about 600 pounds of Mexican marihuana). By contrast, the largest reported seizure of marihuana definitely grown in the United States involved only about eight pounds. See id., at 7 (1967). But see also Senate Hearings 3488-3490.
See supra, at 34 and n. 56.
In refusing to follow this aspect of the reasoning in Yee Hem, we intimate no opinion whatever about the continued validity of the presumption relating to “hard” narcotics, which was sustained in Yee Hem and is now found in 21 U. S. C. § 174. As will appear, our holding that the § 176a “knowledge” presumption is unconstitutional rests entirely upon a detailed inquiry into the available facts about the state of mind of marihuana users. The facts regarding “hard” narcotics may well be significantly different.
Nothing in the legislative history of § 176a is of aid in determining the intended scope of the word “knowing,” as it is used in that section. In making that determination, we have employed as a general guide the definition of “knowledge” which appears in the Proposed Official Draft of the Model Penal Code, at 27 (1962). The Code provides:
“When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.”
See J. Rosevear, Pot: A Handbook of Marihuana 124-125 (1967). It has been estimated that there are 500,000 to 1,000,000 “regular” marihuana smokers in the United States and 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 “occasional” users. See J. Simmons (ed.), Marihuana: Myths and Realities 232 (1967).
See id., at 236; Rosevear, supra, at 121-125.
See ibid.
See United States v. Adams, 293 F. Supp. 776, 780-781, 784-785 (1968).
See Becker, Marihuana: A Sociological Overview, in D. Solomon (ed.), The Marihuana Papers 33, 47-50 (1966); Mandel, Myths and Realities of Marihuana Pushing, in Siinmons (ed.), supra, at 58-110; Rosevear, supra, at 27-37, 117-131; Simmons (ed.), supra, at 231-234. It should be remembered that there are estimated to be at least 3,500,000 “regular” or “occasional” marihuana smokers in the United States. See n. 94, supra.
See authorities cited in n. 98, supra.
See supra, at 39 (testimony of Commissioner Anslinger); House Hearings 1071-1072, Senate Hearings 4354-4355 (statements of District Supervisor Aman).
See Senate Hearings 3488-3489. See also House Hearings 288.
See authorities referred to in A. Hodapp, Marihuana: A Review of the Literature for Analytical Chemists 13 (1959); Bouquet, Cannabis, Parts I — II, 2 U. N. Bull, on Narcotics, No. 4, 14, 21-22 (1950); Ciba Foundation Study Group No. 21, Hashish: Its Chemistry and Pharmacology 33 (1965); Simmons (ed.), supra, at 230.
See authorities cited in n. 100, supra; Rosevear, supra, at 32-33, 68; Boughey, Pot Scenes East and West, in Simmons (ed.), supra, at 33-34; Mayor’s Committee on Marihuana, The Marihuana Problem in the City of New York 9 (1944); Simmons (ed.), supra, at 233.
See Rosevear, supra, at 32-33.
See id., at 33.
See 1 Transcript 16-18, 541 (testimony of Dr. Richard Schultes, Director of Harvard Botanic Museum).
See 2 id., at 19-33 (testimony of Narcotics Agent William Durkin). See also Bureau of Narcotics, Report on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs 17 (1966). But cf. Senate Hearings 3488-3489.
See Simmons (ed.), supra, at 237; Rosevear, supra, at 159; Bureau of Narcotics, Report on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs 17 (1966). See also Senate Hearings 3489.
See Rosevear, supra, at 29; Mandel, Myths and Realities of Marihuana Pushing, in Simmons (ed.), supra, at 78; Senate Hearings 3489.
See Rosevear, supra, at 28. See also Mandel, supra, at 78.
2 Transcript 26 (testimony of Narcotics Agent William Durkin).
Senate Hearings 3489 (prior testimony of Customs Agent Lawrence Fleishman).
See supra, at 49 and n. 102.
See Rosevear, supra, at 31-33.
Id., at 32.
A careful examination of the lower-court decisions regarding the presumption’s constitutionality does not suggest the contrary. All courts of appeals which have ruled on the question have sustained the presumption. See Caudillo v. United States, 253 F. 2d 513 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1958); Costello v. United States, 324 F. 2d 260, 263-264 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1963); United States v. Soto, 256 F. 2d 729, 735 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1958); Borne v. United States, 332 F. 2d 565, 566 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1964); United States v. Gibson, 310 F. 2d 79, 82 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1962). However, there is no indication that in any of these cases the court had before it or took into account even a fraction of the evidence which we have considered; in one instance, the lack of evidence was expressly stated to be the ground of decision. See United States v. Gibson, supra. See also Costello v. United States, supra. The only lower court which conducted a factual inquiry in any way comparable to our own also held the presumption unconstitutional. See United States v. Adams, 293 F. Supp. 776 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1968). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the petitioner of the case. The petitioner is the party who petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. This party is variously known as the petitioner or the appellant. Characterize the petitioner as the Court's opinion identifies them.
Identify the petitioner by the label given to the party in the opinion or judgment of the Court except where the Reports title a party as the "United States" or as a named state. Textual identification of parties is typically provided prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. The official syllabus, the summary that appears on the title page of the case, may be consulted as well. In describing the parties, the Court employs terminology that places them in the context of the specific lawsuit in which they are involved. For example, "employer" rather than "business" in a suit by an employee; as a "minority," "female," or "minority female" employee rather than "employee" in a suit alleging discrimination by an employer.
Also note that the Court's characterization of the parties applies whether the petitioner is actually single entity or whether many other persons or legal entities have associated themselves with the lawsuit. That is, the presence of the phrase, et al., following the name of a party does not preclude the Court from characterizing that party as though it were a single entity. Thus, identify a single petitioner, regardless of how many legal entities were actually involved. If a state (or one of its subdivisions) is a party, note only that a state is a party, not the state's name. | Who is the petitioner of the case? | [
"attorney general of the United States, or his office",
"specified state board or department of education",
"city, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit",
"state commission, board, committee, or authority",
"county government or county governmental unit, except school district",
"court or judicial district",
"state department or agency",
"governmental employee or job applicant",
"female governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority female governmental employee or job applicant",
"not listed among agencies in the first Administrative Action variable",
"retired or former governmental employee",
"U.S. House of Representatives",
"interstate compact",
"judge",
"state legislature, house, or committee",
"local governmental unit other than a county, city, town, township, village, or borough",
"governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact",
"state or U.S. supreme court",
"local school district or board of education",
"U.S. Senate",
"U.S. senator",
"foreign nation or instrumentality",
"state or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate of",
"state college or university",
"United States",
"State",
"person accused, indicted, or suspected of crime",
"advertising business or agency",
"agent, fiduciary, trustee, or executor",
"airplane manufacturer, or manufacturer of parts of airplanes",
"airline",
"distributor, importer, or exporter of alcoholic beverages",
"alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked",
"American Medical Association",
"National Railroad Passenger Corp.",
"amusement establishment, or recreational facility",
"arrested person, or pretrial detainee",
"attorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association",
"author, copyright holder",
"bank, savings and loan, credit union, investment company",
"bankrupt person or business, or business in reorganization",
"establishment serving liquor by the glass, or package liquor store",
"water transportation, stevedore",
"bookstore, newsstand, printer, bindery, purveyor or distributor of books or magazines",
"brewery, distillery",
"broker, stock exchange, investment or securities firm",
"construction industry",
"bus or motorized passenger transportation vehicle",
"business, corporation",
"buyer, purchaser",
"cable TV",
"car dealer",
"person convicted of crime",
"tangible property, other than real estate, including contraband",
"chemical company",
"child, children, including adopted or illegitimate",
"religious organization, institution, or person",
"private club or facility",
"coal company or coal mine operator",
"computer business or manufacturer, hardware or software",
"consumer, consumer organization",
"creditor, including institution appearing as such; e.g., a finance company",
"person allegedly criminally insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial",
"defendant",
"debtor",
"real estate developer",
"disabled person or disability benefit claimant",
"distributor",
"person subject to selective service, including conscientious objector",
"drug manufacturer",
"druggist, pharmacist, pharmacy",
"employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of",
"employer-employee trust agreement, employee health and welfare fund, or multi-employer pension plan",
"electric equipment manufacturer",
"electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company",
"eleemosynary institution or person",
"environmental organization",
"employer. If employer's relations with employees are governed by the nature of the employer's business (e.g., railroad, boat), rather than labor law generally, the more specific designation is used in place of Employer.",
"farmer, farm worker, or farm organization",
"father",
"female employee or job applicant",
"female",
"movie, play, pictorial representation, theatrical production, actor, or exhibitor or distributor of",
"fisherman or fishing company",
"food, meat packing, or processing company, stockyard",
"foreign (non-American) nongovernmental entity",
"franchiser",
"franchisee",
"lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization",
"person who guarantees another's obligations",
"handicapped individual, or organization of devoted to",
"health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor",
"heir, or beneficiary, or person so claiming to be",
"hospital, medical center",
"husband, or ex-husband",
"involuntarily committed mental patient",
"Indian, including Indian tribe or nation",
"insurance company, or surety",
"inventor, patent assigner, trademark owner or holder",
"investor",
"injured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related",
"juvenile",
"government contractor",
"holder of a license or permit, or applicant therefor",
"magazine",
"male",
"medical or Medicaid claimant",
"medical supply or manufacturing co.",
"racial or ethnic minority employee or job applicant",
"minority female employee or job applicant",
"manufacturer",
"management, executive officer, or director, of business entity",
"military personnel, or dependent of, including reservist",
"mining company or miner, excluding coal, oil, or pipeline company",
"mother",
"auto manufacturer",
"newspaper, newsletter, journal of opinion, news service",
"radio and television network, except cable tv",
"nonprofit organization or business",
"nonresident",
"nuclear power plant or facility",
"owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels",
"shareholders to whom a tender offer is made",
"tender offer",
"oil company, or natural gas producer",
"elderly person, or organization dedicated to the elderly",
"out of state noncriminal defendant",
"political action committee",
"parent or parents",
"parking lot or service",
"patient of a health professional",
"telephone, telecommunications, or telegraph company",
"physician, MD or DO, dentist, or medical society",
"public interest organization",
"physically injured person, including wrongful death, who is not an employee",
"pipe line company",
"package, luggage, container",
"political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official",
"indigent, needy, welfare recipient",
"indigent defendant",
"private person",
"prisoner, inmate of penal institution",
"professional organization, business, or person",
"probationer, or parolee",
"protester, demonstrator, picketer or pamphleteer (non-employment related), or non-indigent loiterer",
"public utility",
"publisher, publishing company",
"radio station",
"racial or ethnic minority",
"person or organization protesting racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination",
"racial or ethnic minority student or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"realtor",
"journalist, columnist, member of the news media",
"resident",
"restaurant, food vendor",
"retarded person, or mental incompetent",
"retired or former employee",
"railroad",
"private school, college, or university",
"seller or vendor",
"shipper, including importer and exporter",
"shopping center, mall",
"spouse, or former spouse",
"stockholder, shareholder, or bondholder",
"retail business or outlet",
"student, or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"taxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only",
"tenant or lessee",
"theater, studio",
"forest products, lumber, or logging company",
"person traveling or wishing to travel abroad, or overseas travel agent",
"trucking company, or motor carrier",
"television station",
"union member",
"unemployed person or unemployment compensation applicant or claimant",
"union, labor organization, or official of",
"veteran",
"voter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)",
"wholesale trade",
"wife, or ex-wife",
"witness, or person under subpoena",
"network",
"slave",
"slave-owner",
"bank of the united states",
"timber company",
"u.s. job applicants or employees",
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"General Land Office of Commissioners",
"Transportation Security Administration",
"Surface Transportation Board",
"U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.",
"Reconstruction Finance Corp.",
"Department or Secretary of Homeland Security",
"Unidentifiable",
"International Entity"
] | [
28
] | sc |
Joseph MATAL, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Petitioner
v.
Simon Shiao TAM.
No. 15-1293.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Jan. 18, 2017.
Decided June 19, 2017.
Malcolm L. Stewart, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
John C. Connell, Haddonfield, NJ, for Respondent.
Sarah Harris, General Counsel, Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, Thomas W. Krause, Deputy Solicitor, Christina J. Hieber, Thomas L. Casagrande, Molly R. Silfen, Mary Beth Walker, Associate Solicitors, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, Ian Heath Gershengorn, Acting Solicitor General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant, Attorney General, Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Nicole A. Saharsky, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Douglas N. Letter, Mark R. Freeman, Daniel Tenny, Joshua M. Salzman, Attorneys, Ian Heath Gershengorn, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Stuart Banner, Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law, Supreme Court Clinic, Los Angeles, CA, John C. Connell, Ronald D. Coleman, Joel G. MacMull, Archer &
Greiner, P.C., Haddonfield, NJ, for Respondent.
Justice ALITO announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III-A, and an opinion with respect to Parts III-B, III-C, and IV, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice THOMAS, and Justice BREYER join.
This case concerns a dance-rock band's application for federal trademark registration of the band's name, "The Slants." "Slants" is a derogatory term for persons of Asian descent, and members of the band are Asian-Americans. But the band members believe that by taking that slur as the name of their group, they will help to "reclaim" the term and drain its denigrating force.
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application based on a provision of federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may "disparage ... or bring ... into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead." 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.
I
A
"The principle underlying trademark protection is that distinctive marks-words, names, symbols, and the like-can help distinguish a particular artisan's goods from those of others." B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1293, 1299, 191 L.Ed.2d 222 (2015) ; see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 212, 120 S.Ct. 1339, 146 L.Ed.2d 182 (2000). A trademark "designate [s] the goods as the product of a particular trader" and "protect[s] his good will against the sale of another's product as his." United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 97, 39 S.Ct. 48, 63 L.Ed. 141 (1918) ; see also Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 240 U.S. 403, 412-413, 36 S.Ct. 357, 60 L.Ed. 713 (1916). It helps consumers identify goods and services that they wish to purchase, as well as those they want to avoid. See Wal-Mart Stores, supra, at 212-213, 120 S.Ct. 1339 ; Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 198, 105 S.Ct. 658, 83 L.Ed.2d 582 (1985).
"[F]ederal law does not create trademarks." B & B Hardware, supra, at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1299. Trademarks and their precursors have ancient origins, and trademarks were protected at common law and in equity at the time of the founding of our country. 3 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 19:8 (4th ed. 2017) (hereinafter McCarthy); 1 id., §§ 5:1, 5:2, 5:3; Pattishall, The Constitutional Foundations of American Trademark Law, 78 Trademark Rep. 456, 457-458 (1988); Pattishall, Two Hundred Years of American Trademark Law, 68 Trademark Rep. 121, 121-123 (1978); see Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 92, 25 L.Ed. 550 (1879). For most of the 19th century, trademark protection was the province of the States. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 780-782, 112 S.Ct. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); id ., at 785, 112 S.Ct. 2753 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Eventually, Congress stepped in to provide a degree of national uniformity, passing the first federal legislation protecting trademarks in 1870. See Act of July 8, 1870, §§ 77-84, 16 Stat. 210-212. The foundation of current federal trademark law is the Lanham Act, enacted in 1946. See Act of July 5, 1946, ch. 540, 60 Stat. 427. By that time, trademark had expanded far beyond phrases that do no more than identify a good or service. Then, as now, trademarks often consisted of catchy phrases that convey a message.
Under the Lanham Act, trademarks that are "used in commerce" may be placed on the "principal register," that is, they may be federally registered. 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a)(1). And some marks "capable of distinguishing [an] applicant's goods or services and not registrable on the principal register ... which are in lawful use in commerce by the owner thereof" may instead be placed on a different federal register: the supplemental register. § 1091(a). There are now more than two million marks that have active federal certificates of registration. PTO Performance and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2016, p. 192 (Table 15), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/USPTOFY16PAR.pdf (all Internet materials as last visited June 16, 2017). This system of federal registration helps to ensure that trademarks are fully protected and supports the free flow of commerce. "[N]ational protection of trademarks is desirable," we have explained, "because trademarks foster competition and the maintenance of quality by securing to the producer the benefits of good reputation." San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 531, 107 S.Ct. 2971, 97 L.Ed.2d 427 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Park 'N Fly, Inc., supra, at 198, 105 S.Ct. 658 ("The Lanham Act provides national protection of trademarks in order to secure to the owner of the mark the goodwill of his business and to protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers").
B
Without federal registration, a valid trademark may still be used in commerce. See 3 McCarthy § 19:8. And an unregistered trademark can be enforced against would-be infringers in several ways. Most important, even if a trademark is not federally registered, it may still be enforceable under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which creates a federal cause of action for trademark infringement. See Two Pesos, supra, at 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753 ("Section 43(a) prohibits a broader range of practices than does § 32, which applies to registered marks, but it is common ground that § 43(a) protects qualifying unregistered trademarks" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Unregistered trademarks may also be entitled to protection under other federal statutes, such as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). See 5 McCarthy § 25A:49, at 25A-198 ("[T]here is no requirement [in the Anticybersquatting Act] that the protected 'mark' be registered: unregistered common law marks are protected by the Act"). And an unregistered trademark can be enforced under state common law, or if it has been registered in a State, under that State's registration system. See 3 id., § 19:3, at 19-23 (explaining that "[t]he federal system of registration and protection does not preempt parallel state law protection, either by state common law or state registration" and "[i]n the vast majority of situations, federal and state trademark law peacefully coexist"); id., § 22:1 (discussing state trademark registration systems).
Federal registration, however, "confers important legal rights and benefits on trademark owners who register their marks." B & B Hardware, 575 U.S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1317 (internal quotation marks omitted). Registration on the principal register (1) "serves as 'constructive notice of the registrant's claim of ownership' of the mark," ibid. (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1072 ); (2) "is 'prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the owner's ownership of the mark, and of the owner's exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate,' " B & B Hardware, 575 U.S. at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1300 (quoting § 1057(b) ); and (3) can make a mark " 'incontestable' " once a mark has been registered for five years," ibid . (quoting §§ 1065, 1115(b) ); see Park 'N Fly, 469 U.S., at 193, 105 S.Ct. 658. Registration also enables the trademark holder "to stop the importation into the United States of articles bearing an infringing mark." 3 McCarthy § 19:9, at 19-38; see 15 U.S.C. § 1124.
C
The Lanham Act contains provisions that bar certain trademarks from the principal register. For example, a trademark cannot be registered if it is "merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive" of goods, § 1052(e)(1), or if it is so similar to an already registered trademark or trade name that it is "likely ... to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive," § 1052(d).
At issue in this case is one such provision, which we will call "the disparagement clause." This provision prohibits the registration of a trademark "which may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." § 1052(a). This clause appeared in the original Lanham Act and has remained the same to this day. See § 2(a), 60 Stat. 428.
When deciding whether a trademark is disparaging, an examiner at the PTO generally applies a "two-part test." The examiner first considers "the likely meaning of the matter in question, taking into account not only dictionary definitions, but also the relationship of the matter to the other elements in the mark, the nature of the goods or services, and the manner in which the mark is used in the marketplace in connection with the goods or services." Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure § 1203.03(b)(i) (Apr. 2017), p. 1200-150, http://tmep.uspto.gov. "If that meaning is found to refer to identifiable persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols," the examiner moves to the second step, asking "whether that meaning may be disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group." Ibid. If the examiner finds that a "substantial composite, although not necessarily a majority, of the referenced group would find the proposed mark ... to be disparaging in the context of contemporary attitudes," a prima facie case of disparagement is made out, and the burden shifts to the applicant to prove that the trademark is not disparaging. Ibid. What is more, the PTO has specified that "[t]he fact that an applicant may be a member of that group or has good intentions underlying its use of a term does not obviate the fact that a substantial composite of the referenced group would find the term objectionable." Ibid.
D
Simon Tam is the lead singer of "The Slants." In re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321, 1331 (C.A.Fed.2015) (en banc), as corrected (Feb. 11, 2016). He chose this moniker in order to "reclaim" and "take ownership" of stereotypes about people of Asian ethnicity. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). The group "draws inspiration for its lyrics from childhood slurs and mocking nursery rhymes" and has given its albums names such as "The Yellow Album" and "Slanted Eyes, Slanted Hearts." Ibid.
Tam sought federal registration of "THE SLANTS," on the principal register, App. 17, but an examining attorney at the PTO rejected the request, applying the PTO's two-part framework and finding that "there is ... a substantial composite of persons who find the term in the applied-for mark offensive." Id., at 30. The examining attorney relied in part on the fact that "numerous dictionaries define 'slants' or 'slant-eyes' as a derogatory or offensive term." Id., at 29. The examining attorney also relied on a finding that "the band's name has been found offensive numerous times"-citing a performance that was canceled because of the band's moniker and the fact that "several bloggers and commenters to articles on the band have indicated that they find the term and the applied-for mark offensive." Id., at 29-30.
Tam contested the denial of registration before the examining attorney and before the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) but to no avail. Eventually, he took the case to federal court, where the en banc Federal Circuit ultimately found the disparagement clause facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. The majority found that the clause engages in viewpoint-based discrimination, that the clause regulates the expressive component of trademarks and consequently cannot be treated as commercial speech, and that the clause is subject to and cannot satisfy strict scrutiny. See 808 F.3d, at 1334-1339. The majority also rejected the Government's argument that registered trademarks constitute government speech, as well as the Government's contention that federal registration is a form of government subsidy. See id., at 1339-1355. And the majority opined that even if the disparagement clause were analyzed under this Court's commercial speech cases, the clause would fail the "intermediate scrutiny" that those cases prescribe. See id., at 1355-1357.
Several judges wrote separately, advancing an assortment of theories. Concurring, Judge O'Malley agreed with the majority's reasoning but added that the disparagement clause is unconstitutionally vague. See id., at 1358-1363. Judge Dyk concurred in part and dissented in part. He argued that trademark registration is a government subsidy and that the disparagement clause is facially constitutional, but he found the clause unconstitutional as applied to THE SLANTS because that mark constitutes "core expression" and was not adopted for the purpose of disparaging Asian-Americans. See id., at 1363-1374. In dissent, Judge Lourie agreed with Judge Dyk that the clause is facially constitutional but concluded for a variety of reasons that it is also constitutional as applied in this case. See id., at 1374-1376. Judge Reyna also dissented, maintaining that trademarks are commercial speech and that the disparagement clause survives intermediate scrutiny because it "directly advances the government's substantial interest in the orderly flow of commerce." See id., at 1376-1382.
The Government filed a petition for certiorari, which we granted in order to decide whether the disparagement clause "is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment." Pet. for Cert. i; see sub. nom. Lee v. Tam, 579 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 30, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (2016).
II
Before reaching the question whether the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment, we consider Tam's argument that the clause does not reach marks that disparage racial or ethnic groups. The clause prohibits the registration of marks that disparage "persons," and Tam claims that the term "persons" "includes only natural and juristic persons," not "non-juristic entities such as racial and ethnic groups." Brief for Respondent 46.
Tam never raised this argument before the PTO or the Federal Circuit, and we declined to grant certiorari on this question when Tam asked us to do so, see Brief Responding to Petition for Certiorari, pp. i, 17-21. Normally, that would be the end of the matter in this Court. See, e.g., Yee v. Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 534-538, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 118 L.Ed.2d 153 (1992) ; Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 894-895, 111 S.Ct. 2631, 115 L.Ed.2d 764 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
But as the Government pointed out in connection with its petition for certiorari, accepting Tam's statutory interpretation would resolve this case and leave the First Amendment question for another day. See Reply Brief 9. "[W]e have often stressed" that it is "importan[t] [to] avoid[d] the premature adjudication of constitutional questions," Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 690, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997), and that "we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality ... unless such adjudication is unavoidable," Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101 (1944). See also Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 461, 65 S.Ct. 1384, 89 L.Ed. 1725 (1945) ; Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283, 295, 25 S.Ct. 243, 49 L.Ed. 482 (1905). We thus begin by explaining why Tam's argument about the definition of "persons" in the Lanham Act is meritless.
As noted, the disparagement clause prohibits the registration of trademarks "which may disparage ... persons, living or dead." 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). Tam points to a definition of "person" in the Lanham Act, which provides that "[i]n the construction of this chapter, unless the contrary is plainly apparent from the context ... [t]he term 'person' and any other word or term used to designate the applicant or other entitled to a benefit or privilege or rendered liable under the provisions of this chapter includes a juristic person as well as a natural person." § 1127. Because racial and ethnic groups are neither natural nor "juristic" persons, Tam asserts, these groups fall outside this definition. Brief for Respondent 46-48.
Tam's argument is refuted by the plain terms of the disparagement clause. The clause applies to marks that disparage "persons." A mark that disparages a "substantial" percentage of the members of a racial or ethnic group, Trademark Manual § 1203.03(b)(i), at 1200-150, necessarily disparages many "persons," namely, members of that group. Tam's argument would fail even if the clause used the singular term "person," but Congress' use of the plural "persons" makes the point doubly clear.
Tam's narrow reading of the term "persons" also clashes with the breadth of the disparagement clause. By its terms, the clause applies to marks that disparage, not just "persons," but also "institutions" and "beliefs." 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). It thus applies to the members of any group whose members share particular "beliefs," such as political, ideological, and religious groups. It applies to marks that denigrate "institutions," and on Tam's reading, it also reaches "juristic" persons such as corporations, unions, and other unincorporated associations. See § 1127. Thus, the clause is not limited to marks that disparage a particular natural person. If Congress had wanted to confine the reach of the disparagement clause in the way that Tam suggests, it would have been easy to do so. A neighboring provision of the Lanham Act denies registration to any trademark that "[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent." § 1052(c) (emphasis added).
Tam contends that his interpretation of the disparagement clause is supported by its legislative history and by the PTO's willingness for many years to register marks that plainly denigrated African-Americans and Native Americans. These arguments are unpersuasive. As always, our inquiry into the meaning of the statute's text ceases when "the statutory language is unambiguous and the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent." Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450, 122 S.Ct. 941, 151 L.Ed.2d 908 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, it is clear that the prohibition against registering trademarks "which may disparage ... persons," § 1052(a), prohibits registration of terms that disparage persons who share a common race or ethnicity.
Even if resort to legislative history and early enforcement practice were appropriate, we would find Tam's arguments unconvincing. Tam has not brought to our attention any evidence in the legislative history showing that Congress meant to adopt his interpretation. And the practice of the PTO in the years following the enactment of the disparagement clause is unenlightening. The admitted vagueness of the disparagement test and the huge volume of applications have produced a haphazard record of enforcement. (Even today, the principal register is replete with marks that many would regard as disparaging to racial and ethnic groups. ) Registration of the offensive marks that Tam cites is likely attributable not to the acceptance of his interpretation of the clause but to other factors-most likely the regrettable attitudes and sensibilities of the time in question.
III
Because the disparagement clause applies to marks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group, we must decide whether the clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. And at the outset, we must consider three arguments that would either eliminate any First Amendment protection or result in highly permissive rational-basis review. Specifically, the Government contends (1) that trademarks are government speech, not private speech, (2) that trademarks are a form of government subsidy, and (3) that the constitutionality of the disparagement clause should be tested under a new "government-program" doctrine. We address each of these arguments below.
A
The First Amendment prohibits Congress and other government entities and actors from "abridging the freedom of speech"; the First Amendment does not say that Congress and other government entities must abridge their own ability to speak freely. And our cases recognize that "[t]he Free Speech Clause ... does not regulate government speech." Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 172 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009) ; see Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn ., 544 U.S. 550, 553, 125 S.Ct. 2055, 161 L.Ed.2d 896 (2005) ("[T]he Government's own speech ... is exempt from First Amendment scrutiny"); Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 235, 120 S.Ct. 1346, 146 L.Ed.2d 193 (2000).
As we have said, "it is not easy to imagine how government could function" if it were subject to the restrictions that the First Amendment imposes on private speech. Summum, supra, at 468, 129 S.Ct. 1125 ; see Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct. 2239, 2245-2247, 192 L.Ed.2d 274 (2015). " '[T]he First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others,' " Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 394, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993), but imposing a requirement of viewpoint-neutrality on government speech would be paralyzing. When a government entity embarks on a course of action, it necessarily takes a particular viewpoint and rejects others. The Free Speech Clause does not require government to maintain viewpoint neutrality when its officers and employees speak about that venture.
Here is a simple example. During the Second World War, the Federal Government produced and distributed millions of posters to promote the war effort. There were posters urging enlistment, the purchase of war bonds, and the conservation of scarce resources. These posters expressed a viewpoint, but the First Amendment did not demand that the Government balance the message of these posters by producing and distributing posters encouraging Americans to refrain from engaging in these activities.
But while the government-speech doctrine is important-indeed, essential-it is a doctrine that is susceptible to dangerous misuse. If private speech could be passed off as government speech by simply affixing a government seal of approval, government could silence or muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints. For this reason, we must exercise great caution before extending our government-speech precedents.
At issue here is the content of trademarks that are registered by the PTO, an arm of the Federal Government. The Federal Government does not dream up these marks, and it does not edit marks submitted for registration. Except as required by the statute involved here, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), an examiner may not reject a mark based on the viewpoint that it appears to express. Thus, unless that section is thought to apply, an examiner does not inquire whether any viewpoint conveyed by a mark is consistent with Government policy or whether any such viewpoint is consistent with that expressed by other marks already on the principal register. Instead, if the mark meets the Lanham Act's viewpoint-neutral requirements, registration is mandatory. Ibid. (requiring that "[n]o trademark ... shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless" it falls within an enumerated statutory exception). And if an examiner finds that a mark is eligible for placement on the principal register, that decision is not reviewed by any higher official unless the registration is challenged. See §§ 1062(a), 1071; 37 C.F.R § 41.31(a) (2016). Moreover, once a mark is registered, the PTO is not authorized to remove it from the register unless a party moves for cancellation, the registration expires, or the Federal Trade Commission initiates proceedings based on certain grounds. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1058(a), 1059, 1064 ; 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.111(b), 2.160.
In light of all this, it is far-fetched to suggest that the content of a registered mark is government speech. If the federal registration of a trademark makes the mark government speech, the Federal Government is babbling prodigiously and incoherently. It is saying many unseemly things. See App. to Brief for Pro-Football, Inc., as Amicus Curiae . It is expressing contradictory views. It is unashamedly endorsing a vast array of commercial products and services. And it is providing Delphic advice to the consuming public.
For example, if trademarks represent government speech, what does the Government have in mind when it advises Americans to "make.believe" (Sony), "Think different" (Apple), "Just do it" (Nike), or "Have it your way" (Burger King) ? Was the Government warning about a coming disaster when it registered the mark "EndTime Ministries" ?
The PTO has made it clear that registration does not constitute approval of a mark. See In re Old Glory Condom Corp ., 26 USPQ 2d 1216, 1220, n. 3 (T.T.A.B.1993) ("[I]ssuance of a trademark registration ... is not a government imprimatur"). And it is unlikely that more than a tiny fraction of the public has any idea what federal registration of a trademark means. See Application of National Distillers & Chemical Corp., 49 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 854, 863, 297 F.2d 941, 949 (1962) (Rich, J., concurring) ("The purchasing public knows no more about trademark registrations than a man walking down the street in a strange city knows about legal title to the land and buildings he passes" (emphasis deleted)).
None of our government speech cases even remotely supports the idea that registered trademarks are government speech. In Johanns, we considered advertisements promoting the sale of beef products. A federal statute called for the creation of a program of paid advertising " 'to advance the image and desirability of beef and beef products.' " 544 U.S., at 561, 125 S.Ct. 2055 (quoting 7 U.S.C. § 2902(13) ). Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture provided guidelines for the content of the ads, Department of Agriculture officials attended the meetings at which the content of specific ads was discussed, and the Secretary could edit or reject any proposed ad. 544 U.S., at 561, 125 S.Ct. 2055. Noting that "[t]he message set out in the beef promotions [was] from beginning to end the message established by the Federal Government," we held that the ads were government speech. Id., at 560, 125 S.Ct. 2055. The Government's involvement in the creation of these beef ads bears no resemblance to anything that occurs when a trademark is registered.
Our decision in Summum is similarly far afield. A small city park contained 15 monuments. 555 U.S., at 464, 129 S.Ct. 1125. Eleven had been donated by private groups, and one of these displayed the Ten Commandments. Id., at 464-465, 129 S.Ct. 1125. A religious group claimed that the city, by accepting donated monuments, had created a limited public forum for private speech and was therefore obligated to place in the park a monument expressing the group's religious beliefs.
Holding that the monuments in the park represented government speech, we cited many factors. Governments have used monuments to speak to the public since ancient times; parks have traditionally been selective in accepting and displaying donated monuments; parks would be overrun if they were obligated to accept all monuments offered by private groups; "[p]ublic parks are often closely identified in the public mind with the government unit that owns the land"; and "[t]he monuments that are accepted ... are meant to convey and have the effect of conveying a government message." Id., at 472, 129 S.Ct. 1125.
Trademarks share none of these characteristics. Trademarks have not traditionally been used to convey a Government message. With the exception of the enforcement of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), the viewpoint expressed by a mark has not played a role in the decision whether to place it on the principal register. And there is no evidence that the public associates the contents of trademarks with the Federal Government.
This brings us to the case on which the Government relies most heavily, Walker, which likely marks the outer bounds of the government-speech doctrine. Holding that the messages on Texas specialty license plates are government speech, the Walker Court cited three factors distilled from Summum . 576 U.S., at ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2246-2247. First, license plates have long been used by the States to convey state messages. Id., at ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2248-2249. Second, license plates "are often closely identified in the public mind" with the State, since they are manufactured and owned by the State, generally designed by the State, and serve as a form of "government ID." Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2249 (internal quotation marks omitted). Third, Texas "maintain[ed] direct control over the messages conveyed on its specialty plates." Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2249. As explained above, none of these factors are present in this case.
In sum, the federal registration of trademarks is vastly different from the beef ads in Johanns, the monuments in Summum, and even the specialty license plates in Walker . Holding that the registration of a trademark converts the mark into government speech would constitute a huge and dangerous extension of the government-speech doctrine. For if the registration of trademarks constituted government speech, other systems of government registration could easily be characterized in the same way.
Perhaps the most worrisome implication of the Government's argument concerns the system of copyright registration. If federal registration makes a trademark government speech and thus eliminates all First Amendment protection, would the registration of the copyright for a book produce a similar transformation? See 808 F.3d, at 1346 (explaining that if trademark registration amounts to government speech, "then copyright registration" which "has identical accoutrements" would "likewise amount to government speech").
The Government attempts to distinguish copyright on the ground that it is " 'the engine of free expression,' " Brief for Petitioner 47 (quoting Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 219, 123 S.Ct. 769, 154 L.Ed.2d 683 (2003) ), but as this case illustrates, trademarks often have an expressive content. Companies spend huge amounts to create and publicize trademarks that convey a message. It is true that the necessary brevity of trademarks limits what they can say. But powerful messages can sometimes be conveyed in just a few words.
Trademarks are private, not government, speech.
B
We next address the Government's argument that this case is governed by cases in which this Court has upheld the constitutionality of government programs that subsidized speech expressing a particular viewpoint. These cases implicate a notoriously tricky question of constitutional law. "[W]e have held that the Government 'may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected ... freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.' " Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, Inc ., 570 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 2321, 2328, 186 L.Ed.2d 398 (2013) (some internal quotation marks omitted). But at the same time, government is not required to subsidize activities that it does not wish to promote. Ibid. Determining which of these principles applies in a particular case "is not always self-evident," id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2330, but no difficult question is presented here.
Unlike the present case, the decisions on which the Government relies all involved cash subsidies or their equivalent. In Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 111 S.Ct. 1759, 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991), a federal law provided funds to private parties for family planning services. In National Endowment for Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 118 S.Ct. 2168, 141 L.Ed.2d 500 (1998), cash grants were awarded to artists. And federal funding for public libraries was at issue in United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., 539 U.S. 194, 123 S.Ct. 2297, 156 L.Ed.2d 221 (2003). In other cases, we have regarded tax benefits as comparable to cash subsidies. See Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 103 S.Ct. 1997, 76 L.Ed.2d 129 (1983) ; Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498, 79 S.Ct. 524, 3 L.Ed.2d 462 (1959).
The federal registration of a trademark is nothing like the programs at issue in these cases. The PTO does not pay money to parties seeking registration of a mark. Quite the contrary is true: An applicant for registration must pay the PTO a filing fee of $225-$600. 37 C.F.R. § 2.6(a)(1). (Tam submitted a fee of $275 as part of his application to register THE SLANTS. App. 18.) And to maintain federal registration, the holder of a mark must pay a fee of $300-$500 every 10 years. § 2.6(a)(5) ; see also 15 U.S.C. § 1059(a). The Federal Circuit concluded that these fees have fully supported the registration system for the past 27 years. 808 F.3d, at 1353.
The Government responds that registration provides valuable non-monetary benefits that "are directly traceable to the resources devoted by the federal government to examining, publishing, and issuing certificates of registration for those marks." Brief for Petitioner 27. But just about every government service requires the expenditure of government funds. This is true of services that benefit everyone, like police and fire protection, as well as services that are utilized by only some, e.g ., the adjudication of private lawsuits and the use of public parks and highways.
Trademark registration is not the only government registration scheme. For example, the Federal Government registers copyrights and patents. State governments and their subdivisions register the title to real property and security interests; they issue driver's licenses, motor vehicle registrations, and hunting, fishing, and boating licenses or permits.
Cases like Rust and Finley are not instructive in analyzing the constitutionality of restrictions on speech imposed in connection with such services.
C
Finally, the Government urges us to sustain the disparagement clause under a new doctrine that would apply to "government-program" cases. For the most part, this argument simply merges our government-speech cases and the previously discussed subsidy cases in an attempt to construct a broader doctrine that can be applied to the registration of trademarks. The only new element in this construct consists of two cases involving a public employer's collection of union dues from its employees. But those cases occupy a special area of First Amendment case law, and they are far removed from the registration of trademarks.
In Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn., 551 U.S. 177, 181-182, 127 S.Ct. 2372, 168 L.Ed.2d 71 (2007), a Washington law permitted a public employer automatically to deduct from the wages of employees who chose not to join the union the portion of union dues used for activities related to collective bargaining. But unless these employees affirmatively consented, the law did not allow the employer to collect the portion of union dues that would be used in election activities. Id., at 180-182, 127 S.Ct. 2372. A public employee union argued that this law unconstitutionally restricted its speech based on its content; that is, the law permitted the employer to assist union speech on matters relating to collective bargaining but made it harder for the union to collect money to support its election activities. Id., at 188, 127 S.Ct. 2372. Upholding this law, we characterized it as imposing a "modest limitation" on an "extraordinary benefit," namely, taking money from the wages of non-union members and turning it over to the union free of charge. Id., at 184, 127 S.Ct. 2372. Refusing to confer an even greater benefit, we held, did not upset the marketplace of ideas and did not abridge the union's free speech rights. Id., at 189-190, 127 S.Ct. 2372.
Ysursa v. Pocatello Ed. Assn., 555 U.S. 353, 129 S.Ct. 1093, 172 L.Ed.2d 770 (2009), is similar. There, we considered an Idaho law that allowed public employees to elect to have union dues deducted from their wages but did not allow such a deduction for money remitted to the union's political action committee. Id., at 355, 129 S.Ct. 1093. We reasoned that the "the government ... [was] not required to assist others in funding the expression of particular ideas." Id., at 358, 129 S.Ct. 1093 ; see also id., at 355, 129 S.Ct. 1093 ("The First Amendment ... does not confer an affirmative right to use government payroll mechanisms for the purpose of obtaining funds for expression").
Davenport and Ysursa are akin to our subsidy cases. Although the laws at issue in Davenport and Ysursa did not provide cash subsidies to the unions, they conferred a very valuable benefit-the right to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement under which non-members would be obligated to pay an agency fee that the public employer would collect and turn over to the union free of charge. As in the cash subsidy cases, the laws conferred this benefit because it was thought that this arrangement served important government interests. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209, 224-226, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977). But the challenged laws did not go further and provide convenient collection mechanisms for money to be used in political activities. In essence, the Washington and Idaho lawmakers chose to confer a substantial non-cash benefit for the purpose of furthering activities that they particularly desired to promote but not to provide a similar benefit for the purpose of furthering other activities. Thus, Davenport and Ysursa are no more relevant for present purposes than the subsidy cases previously discussed.
Potentially more analogous are cases in which a unit of government creates a limited public forum for private speech. See, e.g., Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98, 106-107, 121 S.Ct. 2093, 150 L.Ed.2d 151 (2001) ; Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 831, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995) ; Lamb's Chapel, 508 U.S., at 392-393, 113 S.Ct. 2141. See also Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 541-544, 121 S.Ct. 1043, 149 L.Ed.2d 63 (2001). When government creates such a forum, in either a literal or "metaphysical" sense, see Rosenberger, 515 U.S., at 830, 115 S.Ct. 2510 some content- and speaker-based restrictions may be allowed, see id ., at 830-831, 115 S.Ct. 2510. However, even in such cases, what we have termed "viewpoint discrimination" is forbidden. Id., at 831, 115 S.Ct. 2510.
Our cases use the term "viewpoint" discrimination in a broad sense, see ibid., and in that sense, the disparagement clause discriminates on the bases of "viewpoint." To be sure, the clause evenhandedly prohibits disparagement of all groups. It applies equally to marks that damn Democrats and Republicans, capitalists and socialists, and those arrayed on both sides of every possible issue. It denies registration to any mark that is offensive to a substantial percentage of the members of any group. But in the sense relevant here, that is viewpoint discrimination: Giving offense is a viewpoint.
We have said time and again that "the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers." Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592, 89 S.Ct. 1354, 22 L.Ed.2d 572 (1969). See also Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989) ("If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable"); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 55-56, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988) ; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 615, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971) ; Bachellar v. Maryland, 397 U.S. 564, 567, 90 S.Ct. 1312, 25 L.Ed.2d 570 (1970) ; Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 509-514, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969) ; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 551, 85 S.Ct. 453, 13 L.Ed.2d 471 (1965) ; Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 237-238, 83 S.Ct. 680, 9 L.Ed.2d 697 (1963) ; Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4-5, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949) ; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 311, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940) ; Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U.S. 147, 161, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939) ; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365, 57 S.Ct. 255, 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937).
For this reason, the disparagement clause cannot be saved by analyzing it as a type of government program in which some content- and speaker-based restrictions are permitted.
IV
Having concluded that the disparagement clause cannot be sustained under our government-speech or subsidy cases or under the Government's proposed "government-program" doctrine, we must confront a dispute between the parties on the question whether trademarks are commercial speech and are thus subject to the relaxed scrutiny outlined in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980). The Government and amici supporting its position argue that all trademarks are commercial speech. They note that the central purposes of trademarks are commercial and that federal law regulates trademarks to promote fair and orderly interstate commerce. Tam and his amici, on the other hand, contend that many, if not all, trademarks have an expressive component. In other words, these trademarks do not simply identify the source of a product or service but go on to say something more, either about the product or service or some broader issue. The trademark in this case illustrates this point. The name "The Slants" not only identifies the band but expresses a view about social issues.
We need not resolve this debate between the parties because the disparagement clause cannot withstand even Central Hudson review. Under Central Hudson, a restriction of speech must serve "a substantial interest," and it must be "narrowly drawn." Id., at 564-565, 100 S.Ct. 2343 (internal quotation marks omitted). This means, among other things, that "[t]he regulatory technique may extend only as far as the interest it serves." Id., at 565, 100 S.Ct. 2343. The disparagement clause fails this requirement.
It is claimed that the disparagement clause serves two interests. The first is phrased in a variety of ways in the briefs. Echoing language in one of the opinions below, the Government asserts an interest in preventing " 'underrepresented groups' " from being " 'bombarded with demeaning messages in commercial advertising.' " Brief for Petitioner 48 (quoting 808 F.3d, at 1364 (Dyk, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). An amicus supporting the Government refers to "encouraging racial tolerance and protecting the privacy and welfare of individuals." Brief for Native American Organizations as Amici Curiae 21. But no matter how the point is phrased, its unmistakable thrust is this: The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. And, as we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate." United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 655, 49 S.Ct. 448, 73 L.Ed. 889 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
The second interest asserted is protecting the orderly flow of commerce. See 808 F.3d, at 1379-1381 (Reyna, J., dissenting); Brief for Petitioner 49; Brief for Native American Organizations as Amicus Curiae 18-21. Commerce, we are told, is disrupted by trademarks that "involv[e] disparagement of race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and similar demographic classification." 808 F.3d, at 1380-1381 (opinion of Reyna, J.). Such trademarks are analogized to discriminatory conduct, which has been recognized to have an adverse effect on commerce. See ibid. ; Brief for Petitioner 49; Brief for Native American Organizations as Amici Curiae 18-20.
A simple answer to this argument is that the disparagement clause is not "narrowly drawn" to drive out trademarks that support invidious discrimination. The clause reaches any trademark that disparages any person, group, or institution . It applies to trademarks like the following: "Down with racists," "Down with sexists," "Down with homophobes." It is not an anti-discrimination clause; it is a happy-talk clause. In this way, it goes much further than is necessary to serve the interest asserted.
The clause is far too broad in other ways as well. The clause protects every person living or dead as well as every institution. Is it conceivable that commerce would be disrupted by a trademark saying: "James Buchanan was a disastrous president" or "Slavery is an evil institution"?
There is also a deeper problem with the argument that commercial speech may be cleansed of any expression likely to cause offense. The commercial market is well stocked with merchandise that disparages prominent figures and groups, and the line between commercial and non-commercial speech is not always clear, as this case illustrates. If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social "volatility," free speech would be endangered.
* * *
For these reasons, we hold that the disparagement clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The judgment of the Federal Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justice KENNEDY, with whom Justice GINSBURG, Justice SOTOMAYOR, and Justice KAGAN join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has denied the substantial benefits of federal trademark registration to the mark THE SLANTS. The PTO did so under the mandate of the disparagement clause in 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which prohibits the registration of marks that may "disparage ... or bring ... into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols."
As the Court is correct to hold, § 1052(a) constitutes viewpoint discrimination-a form of speech suppression so potent that it must be subject to rigorous constitutional scrutiny. The Government's action and the statute on which it is based cannot survive this scrutiny.
The Court is correct in its judgment, and I join Parts I, II, and III-A of its opinion. This separate writing explains in greater detail why the First Amendment's protections against viewpoint discrimination apply to the trademark here. It submits further that the viewpoint discrimination rationale renders unnecessary any extended treatment of other questions raised by the parties.
I
Those few categories of speech that the government can regulate or punish-for instance, fraud, defamation, or incitement-are well established within our constitutional tradition. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010). Aside from these and a few other narrow exceptions, it is a fundamental principle of the First Amendment that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828-829, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995).
The First Amendment guards against laws "targeted at specific subject matter,"
a form of speech suppression known as content based discrimination. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 2218, 2230, 192 L.Ed.2d 236 (2015). This category includes a subtype of laws that go further, aimed at the suppression of "particular views ... on a subject." Rosenberger, 515 U.S., at 829, 115 S.Ct. 2510. A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an "egregious form of content discrimination," which is "presumptively unconstitutional." Id., at 829-830, 115 S.Ct. 2510.
At its most basic, the test for viewpoint discrimination is whether-within the relevant subject category-the government has singled out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 806, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985) ("[T]he government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject"). In the instant case, the disparagement clause the Government now seeks to implement and enforce identifies the relevant subject as "persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols." 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). Within that category, an applicant may register a positive or benign mark but not a derogatory one. The law thus reflects the Government's disapproval of a subset of messages it finds offensive. This is the essence of viewpoint discrimination.
The Government disputes this conclusion. It argues, to begin with, that the law is viewpoint neutral because it applies in equal measure to any trademark that demeans or offends. This misses the point. A subject that is first defined by content and then regulated or censored by mandating only one sort of comment is not viewpoint neutral. To prohibit all sides from criticizing their opponents makes a law more viewpoint based, not less so. Cf. Rosenberger, supra, at 831-832, 115 S.Ct. 2510 ("The ... declaration that debate is not skewed so long as multiple voices are silenced is simply wrong; the debate is skewed in multiple ways"). The logic of the Government's rule is that a law would be viewpoint neutral even if it provided that public officials could be praised but not condemned. The First Amendment's viewpoint neutrality principle protects more than the right to identify with a particular side. It protects the right to create and present arguments for particular positions in particular ways, as the speaker chooses. By mandating positivity, the law here might silence dissent and distort the marketplace of ideas.
The Government next suggests that the statute is viewpoint neutral because the disparagement clause applies to trademarks regardless of the applicant's personal views or reasons for using the mark. Instead, registration is denied based on the expected reaction of the applicant's audience. In this way, the argument goes, it cannot be said that Government is acting with hostility toward a particular point of view. For example, the Government does not dispute that respondent seeks to use his mark in a positive way. Indeed, respondent endeavors to use The Slants to supplant a racial epithet, using new insights, musical talents, and wry humor to make it a badge of pride. Respondent's application was denied not because the Government thought his object was to demean or offend but because the Government thought his trademark would have that effect on at least some Asian-Americans.
The Government may not insulate a law from charges of viewpoint discrimination by tying censorship to the reaction of the speaker's audience. The Court has suggested that viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government intends to suppress a speaker's beliefs, Reed, supra, at ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2229-2230, but viewpoint discrimination need not take that form in every instance. The danger of viewpoint discrimination is that the government is attempting to remove certain ideas or perspectives from a broader debate. That danger is all the greater if the ideas or perspectives are ones a particular audience might think offensive, at least at first hearing. An initial reaction may prompt further reflection, leading to a more reasoned, more tolerant position.
Indeed, a speech burden based on audience reactions is simply government hostility and intervention in a different guise. The speech is targeted, after all, based on the government's disapproval of the speaker's choice of message. And it is the government itself that is attempting in this case to decide whether the relevant audience would find the speech offensive. For reasons like these, the Court's cases have long prohibited the government from justifying a First Amendment burden by pointing to the offensiveness of the speech to be suppressed. See ante, at 1763 - 1764 (collecting examples).
The Government's argument in defense of the statute assumes that respondent's mark is a negative comment. In addressing that argument on its own terms, this opinion is not intended to imply that the Government's interpretation is accurate. From respondent's submissions, it is evident he would disagree that his mark means what the Government says it does. The trademark will have the effect, respondent urges, of reclaiming an offensive term for the positive purpose of celebrating all that Asian-Americans can and do contribute to our diverse Nation. Brief for Respondent 1-4, 42-43. While thoughtful persons can agree or disagree with this approach, the dissonance between the trademark's potential to teach and the Government's insistence on its own, opposite, and negative interpretation confirms the constitutional vice of the statute.
II
The parties dispute whether trademarks are commercial speech and whether trademark registration should be considered a federal subsidy. The former issue may turn on whether certain commercial concerns for the protection of trademarks might, as a general matter, be the basis for regulation. However that issue is resolved, the viewpoint based discrimination at issue here necessarily invokes heightened scrutiny.
"Commercial speech is no exception," the Court has explained, to the principle that the First Amendment "requires heightened scrutiny whenever the government creates a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys." Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 566, 131 S.Ct. 2653, 180 L.Ed.2d 544 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Unlike content based discrimination, discrimination based on viewpoint, including a regulation that targets speech for its offensiveness, remains of serious concern in the commercial context. See Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 65, 71-72, 103 S.Ct. 2875, 77 L.Ed.2d 469 (1983).
To the extent trademarks qualify as commercial speech, they are an example of why that term or category does not serve as a blanket exemption from the First Amendment's requirement of viewpoint neutrality. Justice Holmes' reference to the "free trade in ideas" and the "power of ... thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,"
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (dissenting opinion), was a metaphor. In the realm of trademarks, the metaphorical marketplace of ideas becomes a tangible, powerful reality. Here that real marketplace exists as a matter of state law and our common-law tradition, quite without regard to the Federal Government. See ante, at 1751. These marks make up part of the expression of everyday life, as with the names of entertainment groups, broadcast networks, designer clothing, newspapers, automobiles, candy bars, toys, and so on. See Brief for Pro-Football, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 8 (collecting examples). Nonprofit organizations-ranging from medical-research charities and other humanitarian causes to political advocacy groups-also have trademarks, which they use to compete in a real economic sense for funding and other resources as they seek to persuade others to join their cause. See id., at 8-9 (collecting examples). To permit viewpoint discrimination in this context is to permit Government censorship.
This case does not present the question of how other provisions of the Lanham Act should be analyzed under the First Amendment. It is well settled, for instance, that to the extent a trademark is confusing or misleading the law can protect consumers and trademark owners. See, e.g., FTC v. Winsted Hosiery Co., 258 U.S. 483, 493, 42 S.Ct. 384, 66 L.Ed. 729 (1922) ("The labels in question are literally false, and ... palpably so. All are, as the Commission found, calculated to deceive and do in fact deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public"). This case also does not involve laws related to product labeling or otherwise designed to protect consumers. See Sorrell, supra, at 579, 131 S.Ct. 2653 ("[T]he government's legitimate interest in protecting consumers from commercial harms explains why commercial speech can be subject to greater governmental regulation than noncommercial speech" (internal quotation marks omitted)). These considerations, however, do not alter the speech principles that bar the viewpoint discrimination embodied in the statutory provision at issue here.
It is telling that the Court's precedents have recognized just one narrow situation in which viewpoint discrimination is permissible: where the government itself is speaking or recruiting others to communicate a message on its behalf. See Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 540-542, 121 S.Ct. 1043, 149 L.Ed.2d 63 (2001) ; Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 229, 235, 120 S.Ct. 1346, 146 L.Ed.2d 193 (2000) ; Rosenberger, 515 U.S., at 833, 115 S.Ct. 2510. The exception is necessary to allow the government to stake out positions and pursue policies. See Southworth, supra, at 235, 120 S.Ct. 1346 ; see also ante, at 1757 - 1758. But it is also narrow, to prevent the government from claiming that every government program is exempt from the First Amendment. These cases have identified a number of factors that, if present, suggest the government is speaking on its own behalf; but none are present here. See ante, at 1758 - 1761.
There may be situations where private speakers are selected for a government program to assist the government in advancing a particular message. That is not this case either. The central purpose of trademark registration is to facilitate source identification. To serve that broad purpose, the Government has provided the benefits of federal registration to millions of marks identifying every type of product and cause. Registered trademarks do so by means of a wide diversity of words, symbols, and messages. Whether a mark is disparaging bears no plausible relation to that goal. While defining the purpose and scope of a federal program for these purposes can be complex, see, e.g., Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, Inc., 570 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 2321, 2328, 186 L.Ed.2d 398 (2013), our cases are clear that viewpoint discrimination is not permitted where, as here, the Government "expends funds to encourage a diversity of views from private speakers," Velazquez, supra, at 542, 121 S.Ct. 1043 (internal quotation marks omitted).
* * *
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
For these reasons, I join the Court's opinion in part and concur in the judgment.
Justice THOMAS, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I join the opinion of Justice ALITO, except for Part II. Respondent failed to present his statutory argument either to the Patent and Trademark Office or to the Court of Appeals, and we declined respondent's invitation to grant certiorari on this question. Ante, at 1755. I see no reason to address this legal question in the first instance. See Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1002, 1009-1010, 197 L.Ed.2d 354 (2017).
I also write separately because "I continue to believe that when the government seeks to restrict truthful speech in order to suppress the ideas it conveys, strict scrutiny is appropriate, whether or not the speech in question may be characterized as 'commercial.' " Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 572, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 150 L.Ed.2d 532 (2001) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see also, e.g., 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 518, 116 S.Ct. 1495, 134 L.Ed.2d 711 (1996) (same). I nonetheless join Part IV of Justice ALITO's opinion because it correctly concludes that the disparagement clause, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), is unconstitutional even under the less stringent test announced in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980).
In the opinion below, the Federal Circuit opined that although "Section 43(a) allows for a federal suit to protect an unregistered trademark," "it is not at all clear" that respondent could bring suit under § 43(a) because "there is no authority extending § 43(a) to marks denied under § 2(a)'s disparagement provision." In re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321, 1344-1345, n. 11 (en banc), as corrected (Feb. 11, 2016). When drawing this conclusion, the Federal Circuit relied in part on our statement in Two Pesos that "the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under § 2 of the Lanham Act are for the most part applicable in determining whether an unregistered mark is entitled to protection under § 43(a)." 505 U.S., at 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753. We need not decide today whether respondent could bring suit under § 43(a) if his application for federal registration had been lawfully denied under the disparagement clause.
The disparagement clause also prevents a trademark from being registered on the supplemental register. § 1091(a).
By "composite," we assume the PTO means component.
Tam advances a convoluted textual argument that goes as follows. The definition of a "person" in 15 U.S.C. § 1127 does not include a "non-juristic person," i.e., a group that cannot sue or be sued in its own right. Brief for Respondent 46-47. Such groups consist of multiple natural persons. Therefore, the members of such groups are not "persons" under the disparagement clause. Id., at 46-48.
This argument leads to the absurd result that no person is a "person" within the meaning of the disparagement clause. This is so because every person is a member of a "non-juristic" group, e.g., right-handers, left-handers, women, men, people born on odd-numbered days, people born on even-numbered days.
The PTO has acknowledged that the guidelines "for determining whether a mark is scandalous or disparaging are somewhat vague and the determination of whether a mark is scandalous or disparaging is necessarily a highly subjective one." In re In Over Our Heads, Inc., 16 USPQ 2d 1653, 1654 (T.T.A.B.1990) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). The PTO has similarly observed that whether a mark is disparaging "is highly subjective and, thus, general rules are difficult to postulate." Harjo v. Pro-Football Inc., 50 USPQ 2d 1705, 1737 (T.T.A.B.1999), rev'd, 284 F.Supp.2d 96 (D.D.C.2003), rev'd and remanded in part, 415 F.3d 44 (C.A.D.C.2005) (per curiam ).
See, e.g., App. to Brief for Pro-Football, Inc., as Amicus Curiae.
See, e.g., D. Nelson, The Posters That Won the War (1991).
Ibid.
Compare "Abolish Abortion," Registration No. 4,935,774 (Apr. 12, 2016), with "I Stand With Planned Parenthood," Registration No. 5,073,573 (Nov. 1, 2016); compare "Capitalism Is Not Moral, Not Fair, Not Freedom," Registration No. 4,696,419 (Mar. 3, 2015), with "Capitalism Ensuring Innovation," Registration No. 3,966,092 (May 24, 2011); compare "Global Warming Is Good," Registration No. 4,776,235 (July 21, 2015), with "A Solution to Global Warming," Registration No. 3,875,271 (Nov. 10, 2010).
"make.believe," Registration No. 4,342,903 (May 28, 2013).
"Think Different," Registration No. 2,707,257 (Apr. 15, 2003).
"Just Do It," Registration No. 1,875,307 (Jan. 25, 1995).
"Have It Your Way," Registration No. 0,961,016 (June 12, 1973).
"EndTime Ministries," Registration No. 4,746,225 (June 2, 2015).
While these cases resemble subsidy cases insofar as the free speech rights of unions and their members are concerned, arrangements like those in these cases also implicate the free speech rights of non-union members. Our decision here has no bearing on that issue.
We leave open the question whether this is the appropriate framework for analyzing free speech challenges to provisions of the Lanham Act.
As with the framework discussed in Part III-C of this opinion, we leave open the question whether Central Hudson provides the appropriate test for deciding free speech challenges to provisions of the Lanham Act. And nothing in our decision should be read to speak to the validity of state unfair competition provisions or product libel laws that are not before us and differ from § 1052(d)'s disparagement clause. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. | What is the issue area of the decision? | [
"Criminal Procedure",
"Civil Rights",
"First Amendment",
"Due Process",
"Privacy",
"Attorneys",
"Unions",
"Economic Activity",
"Judicial Power",
"Federalism",
"Interstate Relations",
"Federal Taxation",
"Miscellaneous",
"Private Action"
] | [
2
] | sc |
TANNENBAUM v. NEW YORK.
No. 993.
Decided June 12, 1967.
Osmond K. Fraenkel and Stanley Fleishman for appellant.
Frank S. Hogan for appellee.
Horace S. Manges for the American Book Publishers Council, Inc., as amicus curiae, in support of appellant.
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed as moot.
Mr. Justice Brennan would reverse the judgment of the lower court. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the state of the court in which the case originated. Consider the District of Columbia as a state. | What is the state of the court in which the case originated? | [
"Alabama",
"Alaska",
"American Samoa",
"Arizona",
"Arkansas",
"California",
"Colorado",
"Connecticut",
"Delaware",
"District of Columbia",
"Federated States of Micronesia",
"Florida",
"Georgia",
"Guam",
"Hawaii",
"Idaho",
"Illinois",
"Indiana",
"Iowa",
"Kansas",
"Kentucky",
"Louisiana",
"Maine",
"Marshall Islands",
"Maryland",
"Massachusetts",
"Michigan",
"Minnesota",
"Mississippi",
"Missouri",
"Montana",
"Nebraska",
"Nevada",
"New Hampshire",
"New Jersey",
"New Mexico",
"New York",
"North Carolina",
"North Dakota",
"Northern Mariana Islands",
"Ohio",
"Oklahoma",
"Oregon",
"Palau",
"Pennsylvania",
"Puerto Rico",
"Rhode Island",
"South Carolina",
"South Dakota",
"Tennessee",
"Texas",
"Utah",
"Vermont",
"Virgin Islands",
"Virginia",
"Washington",
"West Virginia",
"Wisconsin",
"Wyoming",
"United States",
"Interstate Compact",
"Philippines",
"Indian",
"Dakota"
] | [
36
] | sc |
UNITED STATES v. CENTENNIAL SAVINGS BANK FSB (RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, RECEIVER)
No. 89-1926.
Argued January 15, 1991
Decided April 17, 1991
Marshall, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ., joined, in Parts I’and III of which White, J., joined, and in Part III of which Blackmun, J., joined. Blackmun, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which White, J., joined, ante, p. 568.
Acting Solicitor General Roberts argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Assistant Attorney General Peterson, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Clifford M. Sloan, Richard Farber, and Bruce R. Ellisen.
Michael F. Duhl argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Mark L. Perlis, Frederic W. Hickman, Alfred J. T. Byrne, Colleen B. Bombardier, and Daniel R. Richards.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Federal National Mortgage Association by Joseph Angland, Felix B. Laughlin, David C. Garlock, Richard F. Neel, Jr., Caryl S. Bernstein, Carolyn J. A. Swift, and Michel A. Daze; for Main Line Federal Savings Bank et al. by Zachary P. Alexander; and for the United States League of Savings Institutions by Richard L. Bacon.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we consider two questions relating to the federal income tax liability of respondent Centennial Savings Bank FSB (Centennial). The first is whether Centennial realized deductible losses when it exchanged its interests in one group of residential mortgage loans for another lender’s interests in a different group of residential mortgage loans. The second is whether penalties collected by Centennial for the premature withdrawal of federally insured certificates of deposit (CD’s) constituted “income by reason of the discharge . . . of indebtedness” excludable from gross income under 26 U. S. C. § 108(a)(1)(C) (1982 ed.). The Court of Appeals answered both questions affirmatively. We agree with the Court of Appeals that Centennial’s mortgage exchange gave rise to an immediately deductible loss, but we reverse the Court of Appeals’ determination that Centennial was entitled to exclude from its taxable income the early withdrawal penalties collected from its depositors.
I
Centennial is a mutual savings and loan institution (S & L) formerly regulated by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). At issue in this case are two sets of transactions involving Centennial in the 1981 tax year.
The first was Centennial’s exchange of “90% participation interests” in a set of mortgage loans held by Centennial for “90% participation interests” in a different set of mortgage loans held by the Federal National. Mortgage Association (FNMA). Secured by residential properties located primarily in northern Texas, Centennial’s 420 loans had a face value of approximately $8.5 million and a fair market value of approximately $5.7 million; FNMA’s 377 loans, secured by properties located throughout Texas, likewise had a face value of approximately $8.5 million and a fair market value of $5.7 million. Centennial and FNMA structured the exchange so that the respective mortgage packages would be deemed “substantially identical” under the FHLBB’s Memorandum R-49, dated June 27, 1980, a regulatory directive aimed at identifying mortgage exchanges that would not generate accounting losses for FHLBB regulatory purposes but that would generate deductible losses for federal tax purposes. See generally Cottage Savings Assn. v. Commissioner, ante, at 556-557. On its 1981 return, Centennial claimed a deduction for the loss of $2,819,218, the difference between the face value (and cost basis) of the mortgage interests surrendered to FNMA and the market value of the mortgage interests received from FNMA in return.
The second set of transactions was Centennial’s collection of early withdrawal penalties from customers who prematurely terminated their CD accounts. Each CD agreement established a fixed-term, fixed-interest account. See App. 27-29. Consistent with federal regulations, each agreement also provided that the depositor would be required to pay a penalty to Centennial should the depositor withdraw the principal before maturity. See 12 CFR § 526.7(a) (1979); 12 CFR § 526.7(a) (1980); 12 CFR §1204.103 (1981). Thus, in the event of premature withdrawal, the depositor was entitled under the CD agreement to the principal and accrued interest, minus the applicable penalty. See App. 27-29.
Centennial collected $258,019 in early withdrawal penalties in 1981. In its tax return for that year, Centennial treated the penalties as income from the discharge of indebtedness. Pursuant to 26 U. S. C. §§108 and 1017 (1982 ed.), Centennial excluded the $258,019 from its income and reduced the basis of its depreciable property by that amount.
On audit, the Internal Revenue Service disallowed the deduction of the losses associated with Centennial’s mortgages, and determined that Centennial should have declared as income the early withdrawal penalties collected that year. After paying the resulting deficiencies, Centennial instituted this refund action in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which entered judgment for the United States on the mortgage-exchange issue, and for Centennial on the early withdrawal penalty issue. 682 F. Supp. 1389 (1988).
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. 887 F. 2d 595 (1989). It reversed the District Court’s ruling that Centennial did not realize a deductible loss in the mortgage-exchange transaction. Relying on its reasoning in another decision handed down the same day, see San Antonio Savings Assn. v. Commissioner, 887 F. 2d 577 (1989), the Court of Appeals concluded that although the respective mortgage packages exchanged by Centennial and FNMA were “substantially identical” under Memorandum R-49, the two sets of mortgages were nonetheless “materially different” for tax purposes because they were secured by different residential properties. See 887 F. 2d, at 600. Consequently, the court held, the exchange of the two sets of mortgages did give rise to a realization event for tax purposes, allowing Centennial immediately to recognize its losses. See ibid.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that Centennial was entitled to treat the early withdrawal penalties as income from the discharge of indebtedness under § 108. The court reasoned that “the characterization of income as income from the discharge of indebtedness depends purely on the spread between the amount received by the debtor and the amount paid by him to satisfy his obligation.” Id., at 601. Under this test, the early withdrawal penalties constituted income from the discharge of indebtedness, the court concluded, because the penalties reduced the size of Centennial’s obligation to its depositors. See id., at 601-602. The court rejected the United States’ characterization of the penalties as merely a “medium of payment” for Centennial’s performance of its “separate obligation” to release the deposits prior to maturity. Id., at 604-606.
The United States thereafter petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari. Because the Court of Appeals’ dispositions of both the mortgage-exchange issue and the early withdrawal penalty issue are in conflict with decisions in other Circuits, and because of the importance of both issues for the savings and loan industry, we granted the petition. 498 U. S. 808 (1990).
II
The question whether Centennial realized tax-deductible losses when it exchanged mortgage interests with FNMA is controlled by our decision in Cottage Savings Assn. v. Commissioner. In Cottage Savings, we recognized that a property exchange gives rise to a realization event for purposes of § 1001(a) of the Internal Revenue Code so long as the exchanged properties are “materially different.” Ante, at 560-562. We concluded that the properties are “different” in the sense “material” to the Code so long as they embody legally distinct entitlements. Ante, at 564-565.
That test is easily satisfied here. As in Cottage Savings, the participation interests exchanged here were in loans made to different obligors and secured by different properties. Thus, the interests embodied distinct entitlements. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Centennial was entitled to a refund of the disallowed losses claimed on its mortgages.
Ill
We next consider the question whether the early withdrawal penalties collected by Centennial constituted “income by reason of the discharge ... of indebtedness” excludable from income under 26 U. S. C. § 108(a)(1) (1982 ed.). We conclude that the penalties were not subject to exclusion under §108 because the depositors who paid these penalties did not “discharge” Centennial from any repayment obligation.
The version of § 108 in effect for the 1981 tax year states:
“Gross income does not include any amount which (but for this subsection) would be includible in gross income by reason of the discharge (in whole or in part) of indebtedness of the taxpayer if—
“(C) the indebtedness discharged is qualified business indebtedness.” 26 U. S. C. § 108(a)(1) (1982 ed.).
“[Qjualified business indebtedness” includes “indebtedness . . . incurred or assumed ... by a corporation.” 26 U. S. C. § 108(d)(4)(A) (1982 ed.). Income from the discharge of qualified business indebtedness can be excluded from gross income under § 108 only if the taxpayer elects to reduce the basis of his depreciable property by an amount equal to the income excluded. 26 U. S. C. §§ 108(c)(1), 108(d)(4)(B), 1017 (1982 ed.). Thus, the effect of § 108 is not genuinely to exempt such income from taxation, but rather to defer the payment of the tax by reducing the taxpayer’s annual depreciation deductions or by increasing the size of taxable gains upon ultimate disposition of the reduced-basis property.
In characterizing early withdrawal penalties as discharge-of-indebtedness income, Centennial, like the Court of Appeals, focuses purely on the “spread” between the debt that Centennial assumed upon the opening of each CD account and the amount that it actually paid each depositor upon the closing of the account. See 887 F. 2d, at 601. When a depositor opens a CD account, Centennial notes, the bank becomes indebted to the depositor for the principal of the deposit plus accrued interest. By virtue of its collection of an early withdrawal penalty, however, the bank satisfies the debt for less than that amount should the depositor withdraw the principal before maturity. The end result, in Centennial’s view, is no different from what it would have been had the bank and depositor (freed from the restraints of bank regulatory law) formed no agreement on an early withdrawal penalty at the outset but rather negotiated a forgiveness of that amount at the time of withdrawal.
We reject this analysis because it fails to make sense of §108’s use of the term “discharge.” As used in §108, the term “discharge . . . of indebtedness” conveys forgiveness of, or release from, an obligation to repay. A depositor who prematurely closes his account and pays the early withdrawal penalty does not forgive or release any repayment obligation on the part of the financial institution. The CD agreement itself provides that the depositor will be entitled only to the principal and accrued interest, less the applicable penalty, should the depositor prematurely withdraw the principal. Through this formula, the depositor and the bank have determined in advance precisely how much the depositor will be entitled to receive should the depositor close the account on any day up to the maturity date. Thus, the depositor does not “discharge” the bank from an obligation when it accepts an amount equal to the principal and accrued interest minus the penalty, for this is exactly what the bank is obligated to pay under the terms of the CD agreement.
Because § 108 presupposes the “discharge” of an obligation to repay, we disagree with Centennial and the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the “spread” between the debt assumed by Centennial and the amount paid by Centennial upon the closing of the account is sufficient to trigger § 108. The existence of such a spread is sufficient to demonstrate that Centennial enjoyed an accession to income equal in size to the amount of the penalty. But because this income was not the product of the release of any obligation assumed by Centennial at the outset of the bank-depositor relationship, it does not constitute income “by reason of [a] discharge.” In sum, to determine whether the debtor has realized “income by reason of the discharge ... of indebtedness,” it is necessary to look at both the end result of the transaction and the repayment terms agreed to by the parties at the outset of the debtor-creditor relationship.
This common-sense reading of the statutory language best comports with the purpose underlying § 108. The tax-deferral mechanism in § 108 is designed to mitigate the effect of treating the discharge of indebtedness as income. See 26 U. S. C. §61(a)(12) (1982 ed.) (“gross income . . . includes] . . . [i]ncome from discharge of indebtedness”). Borrowed funds are excluded from income in the first instance because the taxpayer’s obligation to repay the funds offsets any increase in the taxpayer’s assets; if the taxpayer is thereafter released from his obligation to repay, the taxpayer enjoys a net increase in assets equal to the forgiven portion of the debt, and the basis for the original exclusion thus evaporates. See United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U. S. 1, 3 (1931); Commissioner v. Jacobson, 336 U. S. 28, 38 (1949); see also Commissioner v. Tufts, 461 U. S. 300, 307, 310-311, n. 11 (1983). But while the cancellation of the obligation to repay increases the taxpayer’s assets, it does not necessarily generate cash with which the taxpayer can pay the resulting income tax. Congress established the tax-deferral mechanism in § 108 so that the prospect of immediate tax liability would not discourage businesses from taking advantage of opportunities to repurchase or liquidate their debts at less than face value. See H. R. Rep. No. 855, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1939); S. Rep. No. 1631, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 77-78 (1942). See generally Wright, Realization of Income Through Cancellations, Modifications, and Bargain Purchases of Indebtedness: I, 49 Mich. L. Rev. 459, 477, 492 (1951).
This rationale is squarely implicated only when the debtor is seeking forgiveness or cancellation of a pre-existing repayment obligation. A debtor who negotiates in advance the circumstances in which he will liquidate the debt for less than its face value is in a position to anticipate his need for cash with which to pay the resulting income tax and can negotiate the terms of the anticipated liquidation accordingly. Moreover, insofar as the CD agreements at issue in this case committed Centennial to releasing the deposits at the sole election of the depositors, Centennial abandoned any control whatsoever over whether and when these particular debt obligations would be liquidated. Consequently, unlike a debtor considering the negotiation of an adjustment of the terms of his duty to repay, Centennial had no discretion to take the tax effects of the transaction into account before liquidating its debt obligations at less than face value.
It is true, as Centennial points out, that construing § 108 to apply only to debt reductions stemming from a negotiated forgiveness of a duty to repay withholds a tax incentive to include “anticipatory discharge” terms in the credit agreement at the outset. But we read the statutory language as embodying a legislative choice not to extend the benefits of § 108’s deferral mechanism that far. For the reasons that we have stated, Congress could easily have concluded that only debtors seeking a release from a pre-existing repayment obligation need or deserve the tax break conferred by § 108. Consistent with the rule that tax-exemption and -deferral provisions are to be construed narrowly, Commissioner v. Jacobson, supra, at 49; Elam v. Commissioner, 477 F. 2d 1333, 1335 (CA6 1973), we conclude that Congress did not intend to extend the benefits of §108 beyond the setting in which a creditor agrees to release a debtor from an obligation assumed at the outset of the relationship.
>
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
For opinion of Justice Blackmun, concurring in part and dissenting in part, see ante, p. 568.
Justice White joins Parts I and III of this opinion, and Justice Blackmun joins Part III.
While this case was pending on appeal, the FHLBB found Centennial to be insolvent. Centennial is currently under the receivership of the Resolution Trust Corporation.
By exchanging merely participation interests, each party retained its relationships with the obligors of the exchanged loans. See Cottage Savings Assn. v. Commissioner, ante, at 557-558, n. 3.
The Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that an exchange of mortgages that are “substantially identical” under Memorandum R-49 can give rise to realizable tax losses is in conflict with a decision of the Sixth Circuit. See Cottage Savings Assn. v. Commissioner, 890 F. 2d 848 (1989), rev’d and remanded, ante, p. 554. The Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that early withdrawal penalties constitute discharge-from-indebtedness income under the pre-1986 version of § 108 is in conflict with a decision of the Seventh Circuit. See Colonial Savings Assn. v. Commissioner, 854 F. 2d 1001 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U. S. 1090 (1989). In 1986, Congress amended § 108, limiting its application to situations in which the taxpayer is insolvent or in bankruptcy at the time of the discharge of his indebtedness. See Pub. L. 99-514, § 822(a), 100 Stat. 2373; see also Pub. L. 100-647, § 1004(a)(1), 102 Stat. 3385 (1988) (extending §108 to “qualified-farm indebtedness”). We granted certiorari nonetheless in light of the significant number of pending cases concerning the tax status of early withdrawal penalties collected prior to 1986.
“The gain from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the excess of the amount realized therefrom over the adjusted basis provided in section 1011 for determining gain, and the loss shall be the excess of the adjusted basis provided in such section for determining loss over the amount realized.” 26 U. S. C. § 1001(a).
It also includes “indebtedness . . . incurred or assumed ... by an individual in connection with property used in his trade or business.” 26 U. S. C. § 108(d)(4)(A) (1982 ed.).
“Discharge” can be used to signify various means of extinguishing a legal duty. See generally Black’s Law Dictionary 463 (6th ed. 1990). Thus, a debtor might be said to “discharge” his debt by satisfying it. But § 108 uses “income by reason of the discharge ... of indebtedness” to refer to the change in the debtor’s financial condition when the debtor is no longer legally required to satisfy his debt either in part or in full. “Discharge” in this sense can occur only if the creditor cancels or forgives a repayment obligation.
Renewing the argument that it unsuccessfully advanced in the Court of Appeals, the United States characterizes the penalties not as income by reason of the discharge of indebtedness, but rather as income for Centennial’s performance of a “separate obligation.” This argument draws on authorities recognizing that § 108 does not apply when a creditor discharges a debtor’s obligation in exchange for services or some other form of nonmonetary consideration. See Spartan Petroleum Co. v. United States, 437 F. Supp. 733 (SC 1977) (debt discharged in exchange for cancellation of distributorship agreement); OKC Corp. v. Commissioner, 82 T. C. 638, 649-650 (1984) (debt discharged in exchange for settlement of lawsuit). In that situation, the debt is not forgiven but is in fact satisfied in full through the debtor’s performance of a “separate obligation”; discharge of the debt is merely the “medium of payment” for that performance, and must be treated as ordinary income for tax purposes. See S. Rep. No. 96-1035, p. 8, n. 6 (1980) (“Debt discharge that is only a medium for some other form of payment, such as a gift or salary, is treated as that form of payment rather than under the debt discharge rules”). See generally 1 B. Bittker & L. Lokken, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts ¶ 6.4.7, p. 6-66 (2d ed. 1989). Because we conclude that Centennial’s reliance on § 108 fails for a more fundamental reason — the absence of a “discharge” for purposes of the statute — we need not consider whether the early withdrawal penalties were actually payments for services unrelated to the debtor-creditor relationship. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence. | What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision? | [
"judicial review (national level)",
"judicial review (state level)",
"Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction",
"statutory construction",
"interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order",
"diversity jurisdiction",
"federal common law"
] | [
3
] | sc |
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP CO.
No. 42.
Argued November 6, 1950.
Decided February 26, 1951.
Robert L. Stern argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, David P. Findling and Mozart G. Ratner.
Nathan L. Miller argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee C. Hinslea, Lucian Y. Ray and Roger M. Blough.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We brought this case here because on an important phase in the administration of the National Labor Relations Act it was in conflict with Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 179 F. 2d 749, just decided, ante, p. 474. Our decision in that case controls this. Since the court below applied what we have found to be the requisite standard in reviewing an order of the Labor Board, there remains only the contention that in any event there was no justification for the court below to find the Board’s order to be unsupported “by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.” This is an issue that does not call for extended discussion.
The case is before us for the second time. It arises from the petition of the Pittsburgh Steamship Company to review an order of the Board, entered August 13, 1946, directing it to reinstate a dismissed employee and to terminate what were found to be coercive and discriminatory labor practices. 69 N. L. R. B. 1395. The Court of Appeals originally denied enforcement on its finding that the order was vitiated by an underlying bias on the part of the trial examiner. 167 F. 2d 126. On certiorari, we rejected the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that resolution of every controverted fact in favor of the Board established invalidating bias on the examiner’s part. We also found that the record disclosed “evidence substantial enough under the Wagner Act.” 337 U. S. 656, 661. That conclusion, it is proper to say, was reached on the assumption that under the Wagner Act substantiality was satisfied if there was evidence in the record in support of the Board’s conclusions. But we remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to consider the effect on its reviewing duty of the Administrative Procedure and the Taft-Hartley Acts, both having come into force between the Board’s order and the Court of Appeals decision. The Court of Appeals has now held, in accordance with our own view, that the scope of review had been extended “beyond the requirements of the Wagner Act,” 180 F. 2d 731, 736, and that in the light of the new requirements the record considered as a whole disentitled enforcement of the order.
The Government concedes, we think rightly, that the scope of the court’s reviewing power was governed by the legislation in force at the time that power was exercised even though the Board’s order antedated such legislation. See United States v. Hooe, 3 Cranch 73, 79, and compare Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506.
The acts claimed to constitute unfair labor practices took place during the campaign of the National Maritime Union to organize the unlicensed employees of the respondent’s 73 vessels, plying on the Great Lakes, during the winter and spring of 1944. The Board adopted the findings and conclusions of its trial examiner and held that the respondent had engaged for several months preceding the election in a deliberate course of antiunion conduct, thereby interfering with the rights of employees guaranteed by § 7 of the Wagner Act.
This conclusion was based in part on the discharge of a seaman who was one of the union organizers. The Board disbelieved some of the testimony justifying dismissal on the ground of incompetence and other evidence it deemed so insubstantial that it drew the “plain inference” that the discharge was “for reasons aside from the manner in which he performed his work.” 69 N. L. R. B. at 1420. The Board also relied on the testimony of union organizers, partly corroborated, that officers of some of the respondent’s ships had expressed hostility to the union, in conversation with members of crews or in their presence. Evidence of respondent’s intent to coerce employees was also found in two letters of the president of the steamship company circulated among the crews. Each assured that union membership would not affect an employee’s position in the company. But an officer of the union testified that some of the policies attributed to the union in the letters were inaccurate and the Board found that these letters, although “not unlawful per se . . . constitute an integral and inseparable part of the respondent’s otherwise illegal course of conduct and when so viewed they assume a coercive character which is not privileged by the right of free speech.” 69 N. L. R. B. at 1396.
Since the court below had originally found that the Board’s order was vitiated by the examiner’s bias, we must take care that the court has not been influenced by that feeling, however unconsciously, on reconsidering the record now legally freed from such imputation. Consideration of the opinion below in light of a careful reading of the entire record convinces us that the momentum of its prior decision did not enter into the decision now under review. The opinion was written by a different judge, and the court was differently constituted. The new member was a judge well versed in matters of industrial relations and not likely to be unsympathetic with such findings as were here made by the Board. The court painstakingly reviewed the record and unanimously concluded that the inferences on which the Board’s findings were based were so overborne by evidence calling for contrary inferences that the findings of the Board could not, on the consideration of the whole record, be deemed to be supported by “substantial” evidence.
Were we called upon to pass on the Board’s conclusions in the first instance or to make an independent review of the review by the Court of Appeals, we might well support the Board’s conclusion and reject that of the court below. But Congress has charged the Courts of Appeals and not this Court with the normal and primary responsibility for granting or denying enforcement of Labor Board orders. “The jurisdiction of the court [of appeals] shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review ... by the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari . . . .” Taft-Hartley Act, § 10 (e), 61 Stat. 148, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 160 (e). Cer-tiorari is granted only “in cases involving principles the settlement of which is of importance to the public as distinguished from that of the parties, and in cases where there is a real and embarrassing conflict of opinion and authority between the circuit courts of appeal.” Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, 261 U. S. 387, 393; Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, Rule 38 (5). The same considerations that should lead us to leave undisturbed, by denying certiorari, decisions of Courts of Appeals involving solely a fair assessment of a record on the issue of unsubstantiality, ought to lead us to do no more than decide that there was such a fair assessment when the case is here, as this is, on other legal issues.
This is not the place to review a conflict of evidence nor to reverse a Court of Appeals because were we in its place we would find the record tilting one way rather than the other, though fair-minded judges could find it tilting either way. It is not for us to invite review by this Court of decisions turning solely on evaluation of testimony where on a conscientious consideration of the entire record a Court of Appeals under the new dispensation finds the Board’s order unsubstantiated. In such situations we should “adhere to the usual rule of noninterference where conclusions of Circuit Courts of Appeals depend on appreciation of circumstances which admit of different, interpretations.” Federal Trade Comm’n v. American Tobacco Co., 274 U. S. 543, 544.
Affirmed.
Since we do not disturb the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that these letters are not substantial evidence of an unfair labor practice under the Wagner Act, we express no opinion on the possible effect of § 8 (c) of the Taft-Hartley Act. 61 Stat. 142, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 158 (c). This section provides that expression of views, argument or opinion shall not be evidence of an unfair practice. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the federal agency involved in the administrative action that occurred prior to the onset of litigation. If the administrative action occurred in a state agency, respond "State Agency". Do not code the name of the state. The administrative activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. If two federal agencies are mentioned, consider the one whose action more directly bears on the dispute;otherwise the agency that acted more recently. If a state and federal agency are mentioned, consider the federal agency. Pay particular attention to the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations. | What is the agency involved in the administrative action? | [
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bureau of Prisons",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner or Collector of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Administrative agency established under an interstate compact (except for the MTC)",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration or Board of Veterans' Appeals",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"State Agency",
"Unidentifiable",
"Office of Thrift Supervision",
"Department of Homeland Security",
"Board of General Appraisers",
"Board of Tax Appeals",
"General Land Office or Commissioners",
"NO Admin Action",
"Processing Tax Board of Review"
] | [
81
] | sc |
DORAN v. SALEM INN, INC., et al.
No. 74-337.
Argued April 21-22, 1975 —
Decided June 30, 1975
Joseph H. Dar ago argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Francis F. Doran, pro se.
Herbert S. Kassner argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Ralph J. Schwarz, Jr.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant is a town attorney in Nassau County, N. Y., who, along with other local law enforcement officials, was preliminarily enjoined by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York from enforcing a local ordinance of the town of North Hemp-stead. Salem Inn, Inc. v. Frank, 364 F. Supp. 478 (1973), aff’d, 501 F. 2d 18 (CA2 1974). In addition to defending the ordinance on the merits, he contends that the complaint should have been dismissed on the authority of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and its companion cases.
Appellees are three corporations which operate bars at various locations within the town. Prior to enactment of the ordinance in question, each provided topless dancing as entertainment for its customers. On July 17, 1973, the town enacted Local Law No. 1-1973, an ordinance making it unlawful for bar owners and others to permit waitresses, barmaids, and entertainers to appear in their establishments with breasts uncovered or so thinly draped as to appear uncovered. Appellees complied with the ordinance by clothing their dancers in bikini tops, but on August 9, 1973, brought this action in the District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. They alleged that the ordinance violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Their pleadings sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and declaratory relief. The prayer for a temporary restraining order was denied instanter, but the motion for a preliminary injunction was set for a hearing on August 22, 1973.
On August 10, the day after the appellees’ complaint was filed, and their application for a temporary restraining order denied, one of them, M & L Restaurant, Inc., resumed its briefly suspended presentation of topless dancing. On that day, and each of the three succeeding days, M & L and its topless dancers were served with criminal summonses based on violation of the ordinance. These summonses were returnable before the Nassau County Court on September 13, 1973. The other two appellees, Salem Inn, Inc., and Tim-Rob Bar, Inc., did not resume the presentation of topless entertainment in their bars until after the District Court issued its preliminary injunction.
On September 5, 1973, appellant filed an answer which alleged that a criminal prosecution had been instituted against at least one of the appellees; the District Court was urged to “refuse to exercise jurisdiction” and to dismiss the complaint. App. 33.
On September 6, 1973, on the basis of oral argument and memoranda of law, the District Court entered an opinion and order in which it “[found] that (1) Local Law No. 1-1973 of the Town of North Hempstead is on its face violative of plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights in that it prohibits across the board nonobscene conduct in the form of topless dancing, and (2) that the daily penalty of $500 for each violation of the ordinance, the prior state-court decision validating a similar ordinance, the overbreadth of the ordinance, and the potential harm to plaintiffs’ business by its enforcement justify federal intervention and injunctive relief.” 364 F. Supp., at 483. The court concluded by enjoining appellant “pending the final determination of this action . . . from prosecuting the plaintiffs for any violation of Local Law No. 1-1973 ... or in any way interfering with their activities which may be prohibited by the text of said Local Law.” Ibid. The court did address appellant’s Younger contention, but held that the pending prosecution against M & L did not affect the availability of injunctive relief to Salem and Tim-Rob. As for M & L, it concluded that if federal relief were granted to two of the appellees, “it would be anomalous” not to extend it to M & L as well. Id., at 482.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed by a divided vote. It held that the “ordinance would have to fall,” 501 F. 2d, at 21, and that the claim of deprivation of constitutional rights and diminution of business warranted the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals rejected appellant’s claim that the District Court ought to have dismissed appellees’ complaint on the authority of Younger v. Harris, supra, and its companion cases. As to Salem and Tim-Rob, Younger did not present a bar because there had at no time been a pending prosecution against them under the ordinance. As for M & L, the court thought that it posed “a slightly different problem,” 501 F. 2d, at 22, since the state prosecution was begun only one day after the filing of appellees’ complaint in the District Court. The court recognized that this situation was not squarely covered by either Younger or Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452 (1974), but concluded that the interests of avoiding contradictory outcomes, of conservation of judicial energy, and of a clearcut method for determining when federal courts should defer to state prosecutions, all militated in favor of granting relief to all three appellees.
We deal first with a preliminary jurisdictional matter. This appeal was taken under 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (2), which provides this Court with appellate jurisdiction at the behest of a party relying on a state statute held unconstitutional by a court of appeals. There is authority, questioned but never put to rest, that § 1254 (2) is available only when review is sought of a final judgment. Slaker v. O’Connor, 278 U. S. 188 (1929); South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. v. Flemming, 351 U. S. 901 (1956). But see Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 357 U. S. 77, 82-83 (1958). The present appeal, however, seeks review of the affirmance of a preliminary injunction. We also are less than completely certain that the Court of Appeals did in fact hold Local Law 1-1973 to be unconstitutional, since it considered the merits only for the purpose of ruling on the propriety of preliminary injunctive relief. We need not resolve these issues, which have neither been briefed nor argued, because we in any event have certiorari jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 2103. As we have previously done in an identical situation, El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U. S. 497, 502-503 (1965), we dismiss the appeal and, treating the papers as a petition for certiorari, grant the writ of certiorari.
Turning to the Younger issues raised by petitioner, we are faced with the necessity of determining whether the holdings of Younger, supra, Steffel, supra, and Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66 (1971), must give way before such interests in efficient judicial administration as were relied upon by the Court of Appeals. We think that the interest of avoiding conflicting outcomes in the litigation of similar issues, while entitled to substantial deference in a unitary system, must of necessity be subordinated to the claims of federalism in this particular area of the law. The classic example is the petitioner in Steffel and his companion. Both were warned that failure to cease pamphleteering would result in their arrest, but while the petitioner in Steffel ceased and brought an action in the federal court, his companion did not cease and was prosecuted on a charge of criminal trespass in the state court. 415. U. S., at 455-456. The same may be said of the interest in conservation of judicial manpower. As worthy a value as this is in a unitary system, the very existence of one system of federal courts and 50 systems of state courts, all charged with the responsibility for interpreting the United States Constitution, suggests that on occasion there will be duplicating and overlapping adjudication of cases which are sufficiently similar in content, time, and location to justify being heard before a single judge had they arisen within a unitary system.
We do not agree with the Court of Appeals, therefore, that all three plaintiffs should automatically be thrown into the same hopper for Younger purposes, and should thereby each be entitled to injunctive relief. We cannot accept that view, any more than we can accept petitioner’s equally Procrustean view that because M & L would have been barred from injunctive relief had it been the sole plaintiff, Salem and Tim-Rob should likewise be barred not only from injunctive relief but from declaratory relief as well. While there plainly may be some circumstances in which legally distinct parties are so closely related that they should all be subject to the Younger considerations which govern any one of them, this is not such a case — while respondents are represented by common counsel, and have similar business activities and problems, they are apparently unrelated in terms of ownership, control, and management. We thus think that each of the respondents should be placed in the position required by our cases as if that respondent stood alone.
Respondent M & L could have pursued the course taken by the other respondents after the denial of their request for a temporary restraining order. Had it done so, it would not have subjected itself to prosecution for violation of the ordinance in the state court. When the criminal summonses issued against M & L on the days immediately following the filing of the federal complaint, the federal litigation was in an embryonic stage and no contested matter had been decided. In this posture, M & Lis prayer for injunction is squarely governed by Y ounger.
We likewise believe that for the same reasons Samuels v. Mackell bars M & L from obtaining declaratory relief, absent a showing of Younger’s special circumstances, even though the state prosecution was commenced the day following the filing of the federal complaint. Having violated the ordinance, rather than awaiting the normal development of its federal lawsuit, M & L cannot now be heard to complain that its constitutional contentions are being resolved in a state court. Thus M & L’s prayers for both injunctive and declaratory relief are subject to Younger’s restrictions.
The rule with regard to the coplaintiffs, Salem and Tim-Rob, is equally clear, insofar as they seek declaratory relief. Salem and Tim-Rob were not subject to state criminal prosecution at any time prior to the issuance of a preliminary injunction by the District Court. Under Steffel they thus could at least have obtained a declaratory judgment upon an ordinary showing of entitlement to that relief. The District Court, however, did not grant declaratory relief to Salem and Tim-Rob, but instead granted them preliminary injunctive relief. Whether injunctions of future criminal prosecutions are governed by Younger standards is a question which we reserved in both Steffel, 415 U. S., at 463, and Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S., at 41. We now hold that on the facts of this case the issuance of a preliminary injunction is not subject to the restrictions of Younger. The principle underlying Younger and Samuels is that state courts are fully competent to adjudicate constitutional claims, and therefore a federal court should, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, refuse to interfere with an ongoing state criminal proceeding. In the absence of such a proceeding, however, as we recognized in Steffel, a plaintiff may challenge the constitutionality of the state statute in federal court, assuming he can satisfy the requirements for federal jurisdiction. See also Lake Carriers’ Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U. S. 498, 509 (1972).
No state proceedings were pending against either Salem or Tim-Rob at the time the District Court issued its preliminary injunction. Nor was there any question that they satisfied the requirements for federal jurisdiction. As we have already stated, they were assuredly entitled to declaratory relief, and since we have previously recognized that “[o]rdinarily . . . the practical effect of [injunctive and declaratory] relief will be virtually identical,” Samuels, 401 U. S., at 73, we think that Salem and Tim-Rob were entitled to have their claims for preliminary injunctive relief considered without regard to Younger’s restrictions. At the conclusion of a successful federal challenge to a state statute or local ordinance, a district court can generally protect the interests of a federal plaintiff by entering a declaratory judgment, and therefore the stronger injunctive medicine will be unnecessary. But prior to final judgment there is no established declaratory remedy comparable to a preliminary injunction; unless preliminary relief is available upon a proper showing, plaintiffs in some situations may suffer unnecessary and substantial irreparable harm. Moreover, neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs, and the State is free to prosecute others who may violate the statute.
The traditional standard for granting a preliminary injunction requires the plaintiff to show that in the absence of its issuance he will suffer irreparable injury and also that he is likely to prevail on the merits. It is recognized, however, that a district court must weigh carefully the interests on both sides. Although only temporary, the injunction does prohibit state and local enforcement activities against the federal plaintiff pending final resolution of his case in the federal court. Such a result seriously impairs the State’s interest in enforcing its criminal laws, and implicates the concerns for federalism which lie at the heart of Younger.
But while the standard to be applied by the district court in deciding whether a plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction is stringent, the standard of appellate review is simply whether the issuance of the injunction, in the light of the applicable standard, constituted an abuse of discretion. Brown v. Chote, 411 U. S. 452, 457 (1973). While we regard the question as a close one, we believe that the issuance of a preliminary injunction in behalf of respondents Salem and Tim-Rob was not an abuse of the District Court’s discretion. As required to support such relief, these respondents alleged (and petitioner did not deny) that absent preliminary relief they would suffer a substantial loss of business and perhaps even bankruptcy. Certainly the latter type of injury sufficiently meets the standards for granting interim relief, for otherwise a favorable final judgment might well be useless.
The other inquiry relevant to preliminary relief is whether respondents made a sufficient showing of the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found such a likelihood. The order of the District Court spoke in terms of actually holding the ordinance unconstitutional, but in the context of a preliminary injunction the court must have intended to refer only to the likelihood that respondents ultimately would prevail. The Court of Appeals properly clarified this point. 501 F. 2d, at 20-21.
Although the customary “barroom” type of nude dancing may involve only the barest minimum of protected expression, we recognized in California v. LaRue, 409 U. S. 109, 118 (1972), that this form of entertainment might be entitled to First and Fourteenth Amendment protection under some circumstances. In LaRue, however, we concluded that the broad powers of the States to regulate the sale of liquor, conferred by the Twenty-first Amendment, outweighed any First Amendment interest in nude dancing and that a State could therefore ban such dancing as a part of its liquor license program.
In the present case, the challenged ordinance applies not merely to places which serve liquor, but to many other establishments as well. The District Court observed, we believe correctly:
“The local ordinance here attacked not only prohibits topless dancing in bars but also prohibits any female from appearing in 'any public place’ with uncovered breasts. There is no limit to the interpretation of the term 'any public place.’ It could include the theater, town hall, opera house, as well as a public market place, street or any place of assembly, indoors or outdoors. Thus, this ordinance would prohibit the performance of the 'Ballet Africains’ and a number of other works of unquestionable artistic and socially redeeming significance.” 364 F. Supp., at 483.
We have previously held that even though a statute or ordinance may be constitutionally applied to the activities of a particular defendant, that defendant may challenge it on the basis of overbreadth if it is so drawn as to sweep within its ambit protected speech or expression of other persons not before the Court. As we said in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 114 (1972):
“Because overbroad laws, like vague ones, deter privileged activity, our cases firmly establish appellant’s standing to raise an overbreadth challenge.”
Even if we may assume that the State of New York has delegated its authority under the Twenty-first Amendment to towns such as North Hempstead, and that the ordinance would therefore be constitutionally valid under LaRue, supra, if limited to places dispensing alcoholic beverages, the ordinance in this case is not so limited. Nor does petitioner raise any other legitimate state interest that would counterbalance the constitutional protection presumptively afforded to activities which are plainly within the reach of Local Law 1 — 1973. See United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 377 (1968).
In these circumstances, and in the light of existing case law, we cannot conclude that the District Court abused its discretion by granting preliminary injunctive felief. This is the extent of our appellate inquiry, and We therefore “intimate no view as to the ultimate merits of [respondents'] contentions.” Brown v. Chote, supra, at 457. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed as to respondent M & L, and affirmed as to respondents Salem and Tim-Rob.
It is so ordered.
The ordinance provides that each day's violation constitutes a separate offense.
For the purposes of §1254 (2), local ordinances are treated as state statutes. See, e. g., Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 357 U. S. 77 (1958).
Respondent M & L urges in defense of its judgment that even if the case is controlled by the principles of Younger and Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66 (1971), it may obtain injunctive and declaratory relief because of the presence of the requisite special circumstances. See Younger, 401 U. S., at 53-54. In particular, M & L claims that it was the subject of “repetitive harassing criminal prosecutions aimed at suppressing the expressive activity carried on” at its bar. Brief for Appellees 35. The District Court did not have occasion to consider this issue, and we decline to do so on the basis of the spare record before us. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether administrative action occurred in the context of the case prior to the onset of litigation. The activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. To determine whether administration action occurred in the context of the case, consider the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations. | Did administrative action occur in the context of the case? | [
"No",
"Yes"
] | [
0
] | sc |
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al. v. PROVENZANO
No. 83-1045.
Decided November 26, 1984
Together with No. 83-5878, Shapiro et al. v. Drug Enforcement Administration, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Per Curiam.
These two cases, when they were filed here, presented the issue whether Exemption (j)(2) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U. S. C. §552a(j)(2), is a withholding statute within the third exemption of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. § 552(b)(3). Because the Courts of Appeals below had decided the issue oppositely, 717 F. 2d 799 (CA3), on rehearing, 722 F. 2d 36 (1983); 721 F. 2d 215 (CA7 1983), and the conflict deserved resolution, we granted certiorari in both cases and consolidated them for oral argument. 466 U. S. 926 (1984). See also Greentree v. U. S. Customs Service, 218 U. S. App. D. C. 231, 674 F. 2d 74 (1982).
The parties now advise us that on October 15, 1984, the President signed into law the Central Intelligence Information Act, Pub. L. 98-477, 98 Stat. 2209, which, by its § 2(c), amended the Privacy Act by adding the following provision:
“No agency shall rely on any exemption in this section to withhold from an individual any record which is otherwise accessible to such individual under the provisions of section 552 of this title [FOIA].”
Thereafter, Anthony Provenzano, the respondent in No. 83-1045, and Alfred B. Shapiro and Gregory J. Wentz, the petitioners in No. 83-5878, moved for summary affirmance and summary reversal, respectively, of their judgments below. In his turn, the Solicitor General has filed a motion to vacate those judgments and to remand the cases to the respective Courts of Appeals.
The new legislation, as the parties agree, plainly renders moot the single issue with respect to which certiorari was granted in each of these cases. That issue is no longer alive because, however this Court were to decide the issue, our decision would not affect the rights of the parties. These requests for records now are to be judged under the law presently in effect. See DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312, 316 (1974); North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244, 246 (1971).
The mootness of the particular issue that was presented to us, however, does not mean that the cases themselves do not remain alive. Access to agency records is still sought by the individual litigants and, so far as we know, the Government may still assert that the records, or parts thereof, are exempt from disclosure under one or more of the FOIA exemptions. Such matters are better resolved by the courts below in the first instance.
Respondent Provenzano’s motion for summary affirmance of the judgment in No. 83-1045 is therefore denied. The motion of petitioners Shapiro and Wentz for summary reversal of the judgment in No. 83-5878 is also denied. Instead, each of the judgments below is vacated, and the cases are remanded to the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third and Seventh Circuits, respectively, for such further proceedings as are indicated.
It is so ordered. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the type of decision made by the court among the following: Consider "opinion of the court (orally argued)" if the court decided the case by a signed opinion and the case was orally argued. For the 1791-1945 terms, the case need not be orally argued, but a justice must be listed as delivering the opinion of the Court. Consider "per curiam (no oral argument)" if the court decided the case with an opinion but without hearing oral arguments. For the 1791-1945 terms, the Court (or reporter) need not use the term "per curiam" but rather "The Court [said],""By the Court," or "By direction of the Court." Consider "decrees" in the infrequent type of decisions where the justices will typically appoint a special master to take testimony and render a report, the bulk of which generally becomes the Court's decision. This type of decision usually arises under the Court's original jurisdiction and involves state boundary disputes. Consider "equally divided vote" for cases decided by an equally divided vote, for example when a justice fails to participate in a case or when the Court has a vacancy. Consider "per curiam (orally argued)" if no individual justice's name appears as author of the Court's opinion and the case was orally argued. Consider "judgment of the Court (orally argued)" for formally decided cases (decided the case by a signed opinion) where less than a majority of the participating justices agree with the opinion produced by the justice assigned to write the Court's opinion. | What type of decision did the court make? | [
"opinion of the court (orally argued)",
"per curiam (no oral argument)",
"decrees",
"equally divided vote",
"per curiam (orally argued)",
"judgment of the Court (orally argued)",
"seriatim"
] | [
1
] | sc |
UNITED STATES v. FULLER et ux.
No. 71-559.
Argued October 18, 1972
Decided January 16, 1973
Rehnquist, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burgee, C. J., and Stewart, White, and Blackmun, JJ., joined. Powell, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall, JJ., joined, post, p. 494.
Harry R. Sachse argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Frizzell, Raymond N. Zagone, and Jacques B. Gelin.
Frank Haze Burch argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Daniel Cracchiolo.
Francis Gallagher filed a brief for the Montana Public Lands Council as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondents operated a large-scale “cow-calf” ranch near the confluence of the Big Sandy and Bill Williams Rivers in western Arizona. Their activities were conducted on lands consisting of 1,280 acres that they owned in fee simple (fee lands), 12,027 acres leased from the State of Arizona, and 31,461 acres of federal domain held under Taylor Grazing Act permits issued in accordance with § 3 of the Act, 48 Stat. 1270, as amended, 43 U. S. C. § 315b. The Taylor Grazing Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits to livestock owners for grazing their stock on Federal Government lands. These permits are revocable by the Government. The Act provides, moreover, that its provisions “shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.” Ibid.
The United States, petitioner here, condemned 920 acres of respondents’ fee lands. At the trial in the District Court for the purpose of fixing just compensation for the lands taken, the parties disagreed as to whether the jury might consider value accruing to the fee lands as a result of their actual or potential use in combination with the Taylor Grazing Act “permit” lands. The Government contended that such element of incremental value to the fee lands could neither be taken into consideration by the appraisers who testified for the parties nor considered by the jury. Respondents conceded that their permit lands could not themselves be assigned any value in view of the quoted provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act. They contended, however, that if on the open market the value of their fee lands was enhanced because of their actual or potential use in conjunction with permit lands, that element of value of the fee lands could be testified to by appraisers and considered by the jury. The District Court substantially adopted respondents’ position, first in a pretrial order and then in its charge to the jury over appropriate objection by the Government.
On the Government’s appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment and approved the charge of the District Court. 442 F. 2d 504. That court followed the earlier case of United States v. Jaramillo, 190 F. 2d 300 (CA10 1951), and distinguished our holding in United States v. Rands, 389 U. S. 121 (1967). The dissenting judge in the Ninth Circuit thought the issue controlled by Rands, supra. We granted certiorari. 404 U. S. 1037 (1972).
Our prior decisions have variously defined the “just compensation” that the Fifth Amendment requires to be made when the Government exercises its power of eminent domain. The owner is entitled to fair market value, United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369, 374 (1943), but that term is “not an absolute standard nor an exclusive method of valuation.” United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 365 U. S. 624, 633 (1961). The constitutional requirement of just compensation derives as much content from the basic equitable principles of fairness, United States v. Commodities Trading Corp., 339 U. S. 121, 124 (1950), as its does from technical concepts of property law.
The record shows that several appraiser witnesses for respondents testified that they included as an element of the value that they ascribed to respondents’ fee lands the availability of respondents’ Taylor Grazing Act permit lands to be used in conjunction with the fee lands. Under the District Court’s charge to the jury, the jury was entitled to consider this element of value testified to by the appraisers. This Court has held that generally the highest and best use of a parcel may be found to be a use in conjunction with other parcels, and that any increment of value resulting from such combination may be taken into consideration in valuing the parcel taken. Olson v. United States, 292 U. S. 246, 256 (1934). The question presented by this case is whether there is an exception to that general rule where the parcels to be aggregated with the land taken are themselves owned by the condemnor and used by the condemnee only under revocable permit from the condemnor.
To say that this element of value would be considered by a potential buyer on the open market, and is therefore a component of “fair market value,” is not the end of the inquiry. In United States v. Miller, supra, this Court held that the increment of fair market value represented by knowledge of the Government’s plan to construct the project for which the land was taken was not included within the constitutional definition of “just compensation.” The Court there said:
“But [respondents] insist that no element which goes to make up value ... is to be discarded or eliminated. We think the proposition is too broadly stated. . . .” 317 U. S., at 374.
United States v. Cors, 337 U. S. 325 (1949), held that the just compensation required to be paid to the owner of a tug requisitioned by the Government in October 1942, during the Second World War, could not include the appreciation in market value for tugs created by the Government’s own increased wartime need for such vessels. The Court said: “That is a value which the government itself created and hence in fairness should not be required to. pay.” Id., at 334. A long line of cases decided by this Court dealing with the Government’s navigational servitude with respect to navigable waters evidences a continuing refusal to include, as an element of value in compensating for fast lands that are taken, any benefits conferred by access to such benefits as a potential portsite or a potential hydro-electric site. United States v. Rands, supra; United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U. S. 222 (1956); United States v. Commodore Park, 324 U. S. 386 (1945).
These cases go far toward establishing the general principle that the Government as condemnor may not be required to compensate a condemnee for elements of value that the Government has created, or that it might have destroyed under the exercise of governmental authority other than the power of eminent domain. If, as in Rands, the Government need not pay for value that it could have acquired by exercise of a servitude arising under the commerce power, it would seem a fortiori that it need not compensate for value that it could remove by revocation of a permit for the use of lands that it owned outright.
We do not suggest that such a general principle can be pushed to its ultimate logical conclusion. In United States v. Miller, supra, the Court held that “just compensation” did include the increment of value resulting from the completed project to neighboring lands originally outside the project limits, but later brought within them. Nor may the United States “be excused from paying just compensation measured by the value of the property at the time of the taking” because the State in which the property is located might, through the exercise of its lease power, have diminished that value without paying compensation. United States ex rel. TVA v. Powelson, 319 U. S. 266, 284 (1943).
“Courts have had to adopt working rules in order to do substantial justice in eminent domain proceedings.” United States v. Miller, supra, at 375. Seeking as best we may to extrapolate from these prior decisions such a “working rule,” we believe that there is a significant difference between the value added to property by a completed public works project, for which the Government must pay, and the value added to fee lands by a revocable permit authorizing the use of neighboring lands that the Government owns. The Government may not demand that a jury be arbitrarily precluded from considering as an element of value the proximity of a parcel to a post office building, simply because the Government at one time built the post office. But here respondents rely on no mere proximity to a public building or to public lands dedicated to, and open to, the public at large. Their theory of valuation aggregates their parcel with land owned by the Government to form a privately controlled unit from which the public would be excluded. If, as we held in Rands, a person may not do this with respect to property interests subject to the Government’s navigational servitude, he surely may not do it with respect to property owned outright by the Government. The Court’s statement in Rands respecting portsite value is precisely applicable to respondents’ contention here that they may aggregate their fee lands with permit lands owned by the Government for valuation purposes:
“[I]f the owner of the fast lands can demand port site value as part of his compensation, ‘he gets the value of a right that the Government in the exercise of its dominant servitude can grant or withhold as it chooses. ... To require the United States to pay for this . . . value would be to create private claims in the public domain.’ ” 389 U. S., at 125, quoting United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U. S., at 228.
We hold that the Fifth Amendment does not require the Government to pay for that element of value based on the use of respondents’ fee lands in combination with the Government’s permit lands.
The Court of Appeals based its holding in part on its conclusion that although the Fifth Amendment might not have required the Government to pay compensation of the sort permitted by the trial court’s charge to the jury, the history of the Taylor Grazing Act indicated that Congress had intended that such compensation be paid. Congress may, of course, provide in connection with condemnation proceedings that particular elements of value or particular rights be paid for even though in the absence of such provision the Constitution would not require payment. United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725 (1950). But we do think the factors relied upon by the Court of Appeals fall far short of the direction contained in the Reclamation Act of 1902, 32 Stat. 388, as amended, that payment be made for rights recognized under state law, which was determinative of the outcome in Gerlach. The provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act quoted supra make clear the congressional intent that no compensable property right be created in the permit lands themselves as a result of the issuance of the permit. Given that intent, it would be unusual, we think, for Congress to have turned around and authorized compensation for the value added to fee lands by their potential use in connection with permit lands. We find no such authorization in the applicable congressional enactments.
Reversed. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the petitioner of the case. The petitioner is the party who petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. This party is variously known as the petitioner or the appellant. Characterize the petitioner as the Court's opinion identifies them.
Identify the petitioner by the label given to the party in the opinion or judgment of the Court except where the Reports title a party as the "United States" or as a named state. Textual identification of parties is typically provided prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. The official syllabus, the summary that appears on the title page of the case, may be consulted as well. In describing the parties, the Court employs terminology that places them in the context of the specific lawsuit in which they are involved. For example, "employer" rather than "business" in a suit by an employee; as a "minority," "female," or "minority female" employee rather than "employee" in a suit alleging discrimination by an employer.
Also note that the Court's characterization of the parties applies whether the petitioner is actually single entity or whether many other persons or legal entities have associated themselves with the lawsuit. That is, the presence of the phrase, et al., following the name of a party does not preclude the Court from characterizing that party as though it were a single entity. Thus, identify a single petitioner, regardless of how many legal entities were actually involved. If a state (or one of its subdivisions) is a party, note only that a state is a party, not the state's name. | Who is the petitioner of the case? | [
"attorney general of the United States, or his office",
"specified state board or department of education",
"city, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit",
"state commission, board, committee, or authority",
"county government or county governmental unit, except school district",
"court or judicial district",
"state department or agency",
"governmental employee or job applicant",
"female governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority female governmental employee or job applicant",
"not listed among agencies in the first Administrative Action variable",
"retired or former governmental employee",
"U.S. House of Representatives",
"interstate compact",
"judge",
"state legislature, house, or committee",
"local governmental unit other than a county, city, town, township, village, or borough",
"governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact",
"state or U.S. supreme court",
"local school district or board of education",
"U.S. Senate",
"U.S. senator",
"foreign nation or instrumentality",
"state or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate of",
"state college or university",
"United States",
"State",
"person accused, indicted, or suspected of crime",
"advertising business or agency",
"agent, fiduciary, trustee, or executor",
"airplane manufacturer, or manufacturer of parts of airplanes",
"airline",
"distributor, importer, or exporter of alcoholic beverages",
"alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked",
"American Medical Association",
"National Railroad Passenger Corp.",
"amusement establishment, or recreational facility",
"arrested person, or pretrial detainee",
"attorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association",
"author, copyright holder",
"bank, savings and loan, credit union, investment company",
"bankrupt person or business, or business in reorganization",
"establishment serving liquor by the glass, or package liquor store",
"water transportation, stevedore",
"bookstore, newsstand, printer, bindery, purveyor or distributor of books or magazines",
"brewery, distillery",
"broker, stock exchange, investment or securities firm",
"construction industry",
"bus or motorized passenger transportation vehicle",
"business, corporation",
"buyer, purchaser",
"cable TV",
"car dealer",
"person convicted of crime",
"tangible property, other than real estate, including contraband",
"chemical company",
"child, children, including adopted or illegitimate",
"religious organization, institution, or person",
"private club or facility",
"coal company or coal mine operator",
"computer business or manufacturer, hardware or software",
"consumer, consumer organization",
"creditor, including institution appearing as such; e.g., a finance company",
"person allegedly criminally insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial",
"defendant",
"debtor",
"real estate developer",
"disabled person or disability benefit claimant",
"distributor",
"person subject to selective service, including conscientious objector",
"drug manufacturer",
"druggist, pharmacist, pharmacy",
"employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of",
"employer-employee trust agreement, employee health and welfare fund, or multi-employer pension plan",
"electric equipment manufacturer",
"electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company",
"eleemosynary institution or person",
"environmental organization",
"employer. If employer's relations with employees are governed by the nature of the employer's business (e.g., railroad, boat), rather than labor law generally, the more specific designation is used in place of Employer.",
"farmer, farm worker, or farm organization",
"father",
"female employee or job applicant",
"female",
"movie, play, pictorial representation, theatrical production, actor, or exhibitor or distributor of",
"fisherman or fishing company",
"food, meat packing, or processing company, stockyard",
"foreign (non-American) nongovernmental entity",
"franchiser",
"franchisee",
"lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization",
"person who guarantees another's obligations",
"handicapped individual, or organization of devoted to",
"health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor",
"heir, or beneficiary, or person so claiming to be",
"hospital, medical center",
"husband, or ex-husband",
"involuntarily committed mental patient",
"Indian, including Indian tribe or nation",
"insurance company, or surety",
"inventor, patent assigner, trademark owner or holder",
"investor",
"injured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related",
"juvenile",
"government contractor",
"holder of a license or permit, or applicant therefor",
"magazine",
"male",
"medical or Medicaid claimant",
"medical supply or manufacturing co.",
"racial or ethnic minority employee or job applicant",
"minority female employee or job applicant",
"manufacturer",
"management, executive officer, or director, of business entity",
"military personnel, or dependent of, including reservist",
"mining company or miner, excluding coal, oil, or pipeline company",
"mother",
"auto manufacturer",
"newspaper, newsletter, journal of opinion, news service",
"radio and television network, except cable tv",
"nonprofit organization or business",
"nonresident",
"nuclear power plant or facility",
"owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels",
"shareholders to whom a tender offer is made",
"tender offer",
"oil company, or natural gas producer",
"elderly person, or organization dedicated to the elderly",
"out of state noncriminal defendant",
"political action committee",
"parent or parents",
"parking lot or service",
"patient of a health professional",
"telephone, telecommunications, or telegraph company",
"physician, MD or DO, dentist, or medical society",
"public interest organization",
"physically injured person, including wrongful death, who is not an employee",
"pipe line company",
"package, luggage, container",
"political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official",
"indigent, needy, welfare recipient",
"indigent defendant",
"private person",
"prisoner, inmate of penal institution",
"professional organization, business, or person",
"probationer, or parolee",
"protester, demonstrator, picketer or pamphleteer (non-employment related), or non-indigent loiterer",
"public utility",
"publisher, publishing company",
"radio station",
"racial or ethnic minority",
"person or organization protesting racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination",
"racial or ethnic minority student or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"realtor",
"journalist, columnist, member of the news media",
"resident",
"restaurant, food vendor",
"retarded person, or mental incompetent",
"retired or former employee",
"railroad",
"private school, college, or university",
"seller or vendor",
"shipper, including importer and exporter",
"shopping center, mall",
"spouse, or former spouse",
"stockholder, shareholder, or bondholder",
"retail business or outlet",
"student, or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"taxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only",
"tenant or lessee",
"theater, studio",
"forest products, lumber, or logging company",
"person traveling or wishing to travel abroad, or overseas travel agent",
"trucking company, or motor carrier",
"television station",
"union member",
"unemployed person or unemployment compensation applicant or claimant",
"union, labor organization, or official of",
"veteran",
"voter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)",
"wholesale trade",
"wife, or ex-wife",
"witness, or person under subpoena",
"network",
"slave",
"slave-owner",
"bank of the united states",
"timber company",
"u.s. job applicants or employees",
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"General Land Office of Commissioners",
"Transportation Security Administration",
"Surface Transportation Board",
"U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.",
"Reconstruction Finance Corp.",
"Department or Secretary of Homeland Security",
"Unidentifiable",
"International Entity"
] | [
26
] | sc |
HELLENIC LINES LTD. et al. v. RHODITIS
No. 661.
Argued April 21, 1970
Decided June 8, 1970
James M. Estabrook argued the cause for petitioners. On the briefs was George F. Wood.
Joseph B. Stahl argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Mr. Estabrook and David P. H. Watson for the Royal Greek Government, and by John R. Sheneman and Edwin K. Reid for the Greek Chamber of Shipping et al.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Arthur J. Mandell for the American Trial Lawyers Association, and by Abraham E. Freedman for the National Maritime Union of America.
Me. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit under the Jones Act by a seaman who was injured aboard the ship Hellenic Hero in the Port of New Orleans. The District Court, sitting without a jury, rendered judgment for the seaman, 273 F. Supp. 248. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 412 P. 2d 919. The case is here on petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted, 396 U. S. 1000, in light of the conflict between the decision below and Tsakonites v. Transpacific Carriers Corp., 368 F. 2d 426, in the Second Circuit.
Petitioner Hellenic Lines Ltd. is a Greek corporation that has its largest office in New York and another office in New Orleans. More than 95% of its stock is owned by a United States domiciliary who is a Greek citizen — Pericles G. Callimanopoulos (whom we call Pericles). He lives in Connecticut and manages the corporation out of New York. He has lived in this country since 1945. The ship Hellenic Hero is engaged in regularly scheduled runs between various ports of the United States and the Middle East, Pakistan, and India. The District Court found that its entire income is from cargo either originating or terminating in the United States.
Respondent, the seaman, signed on in Greece, and he is a Greek citizen. His contract of employment provides that Greek law and a Greek collective-bargaining agreement apply between the employer and the seaman and that all claims arising out of the employment contract are to be adjudicated by a Greek court. And it seems to be conceded that respondent could obtain relief through Greek courts, if he desired.
The Jones Act speaks only of “the defendant employer” without any qualifications. In Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U. S. 571, however, we listed seven factors to be considered in determining whether a particular shipowner should be held to be an “employer” for Jones Act purposes:
(1) the place of the wrongful act; (2) the law of the flag; (3) the allegiance or domicile of the injured seaman; (4) allegiance of the defendant shipowner; (5) the place where the contract of employment was made; (6) the inaccessibility of a foreign forum; and (7) the law of the forum.
Of these seven factors it is urged that four are in favor of the shipowner and against jurisdiction: the ship’s flag is Greek; the injured seaman is Greek; the employment contract is Greek; and there is a foreign forum available to the injured seaman.
The Lauritzen test, however, is not a mechanical one. 345 U. S., at 582. We indicated that the flag that a ship flies may, at times, alone be sufficient. Id., at 585-586. The significance of one or more factors must be considered in light of the national interest served by the assertion of Jones Act jurisdiction. Moreover, the list of seven factors in Lauritzen was not intended as exhaustive. As held in Pavlou v. Ocean Traders Marine Corp., 211 F. Supp. 320, 325, and approved by the Court of Appeals in the present case, 412 F. 2d, at 923 n. 7, the shipowner’s base of operations is another factor of importance in determining whether the Jones Act is applicable; and there well may be others.
In Lauritzen the injured seaman had been hired in and was returned to the United States, and the shipowner was served here. Those were the only contacts of that shipping operation with this country.
The present case is quite different.
Pericles became a lawful permanent resident alien in 1952. We extend to such an alien the same constitutional protections of due process that we accord citizens. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 596. The injury occurred here. The forum is a United States court. Pericles’ base of operations is New York. The Hellenic Hero was not a casual visitor; rather, it and many of its sister ships were earning income from cargo originating or terminating here. We see no reason whatsoever to give the Jones Act a strained construction so that this alien owner, engaged in an extensive business operation in this country, may have an advantage over citizens engaged in the same business by allowing him to escape the obligations and responsibility of a Jones Act “employer.” The flag, the nationality of the seaman, the fact that his employment contract was Greek, and that he might be compensated there are in the totality of the circumstances of this case minor weights in the scales compared with the substantial and continuing contacts that this alien owner has with this country. If, as stated in Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships Inc., 263 F. 2d 437, the liberal purposes of the Jones Act are to be effectuated, the facade of the operation must be considered as minor, compared with the real nature of the operation and a cold objective look at the actual operational contacts that this ship and this owner have with the United States. By that test the Court of Appeals was clearly right in holding that petitioner Hellenic Lines was an “employer” under the Jones Act.
Affirmed.
Tbe Act provides:
“Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in ease of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of action for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable. Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located.” 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688.
The other petitioner, Universal Cargo Carriers Inc., is a Panamanian corporation which owns the Hellenic Hero; but Hellenic Hero is managed by petitioner Hellenic Lines Ltd., a Greek corporation.
Pericles owns in excess of 95% of the stock of both petitioners.
Judge Medina, speaking for the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, correctly stated the problem in the following words:
“[T]he decisional process of arriving at a conclusion on the subject of the application of the Jones Act involves the ascertainment of the facts or groups of facts which constitute contacts between the transaction involved in the case and the United States, and then deciding whether or not they are substantial. Thus each factor is to be 'weighed’ and 'evaluated’ only to the end that, after each factor has been given consideration, a rational and satisfactory conclusion may be arrived at on the question of whether all the factors present add up to the necessary substantiality. Moreover, each factor, or contact, or group of facts must be tested in the light of tiie underlying objective, which is to effectuate the liberal purposes of the Jones Act.” Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc., 263 F. 2d 437, 441.
“The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all 'persons’ and guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority.” Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135, 161 (concurring opinion). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence. | What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision? | [
"judicial review (national level)",
"judicial review (state level)",
"Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction",
"statutory construction",
"interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order",
"diversity jurisdiction",
"federal common law"
] | [
3
] | sc |
OFFICE EMPLOYES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 11, AFL-CIO, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
No. 422.
Argued March 28, 1957.
Decided May 6, 1957.
Joseph E. Finley argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Dominick L. Manoli argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Stephen Leonard and Fannie M. Boyls.
Samuel B. Bassett and Clifford D. O’Brien filed a brief for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, et al., as amici curiae, urging affirmance.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the attempt of the petitioner, Local 11 of the Office Employes International Union, AFL-CIO, to represent for collective bargaining purposes the office-clerical workers employed at the Teamsters Building in Portland, Oregon. These office-clerical employees were engaged by the various local unions and affiliates of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL. Local 11 filed a series of unfair labor practice complaints with respondent, National Labor Relations Board, charging in substance that the Teamster group had interfered with the Local’s effort to organize the office-clerical workers in violation of § 8 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act. The primary question is whether with respect to their own employees labor organizations are “employers” within the meaning of § 2 (2) of the Act. Since we decide this question in the affirmative a subsidiary question is posed: Whether the Board may, by the application of general standards of classification, refuse to assert any jurisdiction over labor unions as a class when they act as employers. The Board here refused to assert any jurisdiction, and the complaints were dismissed. 113 N. L. R. B. 987. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 98 U. S. App. D. C. 335, 235 F. 2d 832. The importance of the jurisdictional questions involved caused us to grant certiorari in the interest of the proper administration of the Act. 352 U. S. 906. We believe the Board erred when it refused to take jurisdiction and thus, in effect, engrafted a blanket exemption upon the Act for all labor unions as employers.
We shall not deal with the merits of the unfair labor practice complaints. As to the jurisdictional question, the findings indicate that there are 23 workers employed by the various Teamster organizations at the Teamsters Building. They are paid by the Teamster group which, excluding the Security Plan Office, forms “an integral part of a multistate enterprise.” The trial examiner concluded that the Teamster group came within the term “employer” under § 2 (2) of the Act. He further found that their operation was well within the monetary jurisdictional standards set by the Board in Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 N. L. R. B. 481 (1954). While the Board agreed with the examiner’s interpretation of § 2 (2) as to the term “employer,” it held, by a divided vote, that since the Teamster group was composed of unions, all engaged in a nonprofit business, the criteria applied to other nonprofit employers should govern. It further concluded “that labor organizations, which, when' engaged in their primary function of advancing employee welfare, are institutions unto themselves within the framework of this country’s economic scheme,” should not “be made subject to any of the standards originated for business organizations.” 113 N. L. R. B., at 991.
h-I
With regard to the jurisdiction of the Board the wording of § 2 (2) of the Act is clear and unambiguous. It says that the term “employer” includes any labor organization “when acting as an employer.” It follows that when a labor union takes on the role of an employer the Act applies to its operations just as it would to any other employer. The Board itself recognized this fact as early as 1951 in Air Line Pilots Association, 97 N. L. R. B. 929. There the Air Line Pilots Association was found to be an employer and the Board ordered that an election be held to determine the wishes of that union’s own employees in regard to the selection of appropriate employee bargaining units and a collective bargaining representative. Section 9 of the Act was therefore applied to the union as an employer.
The legislative history of § 2 (2) unequivocally supports our conclusion. The Act, before its adoption in 1935, was considered by both the 73d and 74th Congresses. On each occasion the bill went into committee with labor unions excluded from the definition of an employer. Twice the Senate Committee to which it was referred amended it to include within the category of an employer labor unions when dealing with their own employees. The Committee inserted the words “other than when acting as an employer” after the exclusion of labor organizations from the definition of an employer. The Senate Committee on Education and Labor to which the bill was referred stated in explanation of this alteration:
“The reason for stating that ‘employer’ excludes ‘any labor organization, other than when acting as an employer’ is this: In one sense every labor organization is an employer, it hires clerks, secretaries, and the like. In its relations with its own employees, a labor organization ought to be treated as an employer, and the bill so provides.” (Emphasis added.) S. Rep. No. 1184, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 4.
The bill which became the Act in 1935, S. 1958, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., contained the identical language set forth in italics in the above Senate Report. It is inescapable that the Board has jurisdiction.
II.
The question remains whether the Board may, nevertheless, refuse to assert jurisdiction over labor unions, as a class, when acting as employers. The Board in the face of the clear expression of the Congress to the contrary has exempted labor unions when acting as employers from the provisions of the Act. We believe that such an arbitrary blanket exclusion of union employers as a class is beyond the power of the Board. While it is true that “the Board sometimes properly declines to [assert jurisdiction] stating that the policies of the Act would not be effectuated by its assertion of jurisdiction in that case” (emphasis supplied), Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. Council, 341 U. S. 675, 684 (1951), here the Board renounces jurisdiction over an entire category of employers, i. e., labor unions, a most important segment of American industrial life. It reasons that labor unions are nonprofit organizations. But until this case the Board has never recognized such a blanket rule of exclusion over all nonprofit employers. It has declined jurisdiction on an ad hoc basis over religious, educational, and eleemosynary employers such as a university library, a symphony orchestra, a research laboratory, and a church radio station. When the Act was amended in 1947 the Congress was aware of the Board’s general practice of excluding nonprofit organizations from the coverage of the Act when these organizations were engaged in noncommercial activities. The House of Representatives attempted to give these exclusions specific legislative approval. However, the Senate draft of the bill excluded only hospital employers from the Act’s coverage. The Senate version became a part of the Act and the language is the same as that involved here. The joint committee report on which the final enactment was based recited that the activities of nonprofit employers or their employees had been considered as coming within the Act only “in exceptional circumstances and in connection with purely commercial activities.” To place labor unions in this category is entirely unrealistic for the very nature of the excluded nonprofit employers is inherently different from that of labor unions and the reason for such exclusion has no applicability to union activity such as that found here. This is particularly true when we consider the pointed language of the Congress — repeated in Taft-Hartley in 1947 — that unions shall not be excluded when acting as employers. As the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals points out, “§ 2 (2)’s strikingly particular reference to labor unions sharply differentiates them from non-profit organizations generally . . . .” 98 U. S. App. D. C., at 337, 235 F. 2d, at 834. We do not, therefore, believe that it was within the Board’s discretion to remove unions as employers from the coverage of the Act after Congress had specifically included them therein.
It is true that the dollar volume jurisdictional standards adopted by the Board to govern its jurisdiction, Hollow Tree Lumber Co., 91 N. L. R. B. 635 (1950), exclude small employers whose business does not sufficiently affect commerce. But its exercise of discretion in the local field does not give the Board the power to decline jurisdiction over all employers in other fields. To do so would but grant to the Board the congressional power of repeal. See also Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U. S. 1, 4 (1957), where the Court refused to pass “upon the validity of any particular declination of jurisdiction by the Board or any set of jurisdictional standards.”
We therefore conclude that the Board’s declination of jurisdiction was contrary to the intent of Congress, was arbitrary, and was beyond its power. The judgment is therefore reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for remand to the Board for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The complaints were leveled at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its representative, Teamster Local No. 206, Teamster Local No. 223, the Teamsters’ Joint Council of Drivers No. 37, the Oregon Teamsters’ Security Plan Office and its administrator, and the Teamsters Building Association, Inc. The latter owns and operates an office building in Portland, Oregon. The office-clerical employees petitioner attempted to organize perform services for the various teamster organizations here involved. These organizations are the exclusive tenants of the building.
61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a).
61 Stat. 137, 29 U. S. C.-§ 152 (2), provides in pertinent part:
“Sec. 2. When used in this Act—
“(2) The term ‘employer’ includes any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any corporation or association operating a hospital, if no part of the net earnings inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, or any person subject to the Railway Labor Act, as amended from time to time, or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The annual payment of initiation fees and taxes from members of the Teamsters Union throughout the country to the International’s headquarters in Washington, D. C., amounts to more than $6,000,000. The minimum monetary jurisdictional requirement for a multistate enterprise such as the Teamsters, promulgated by the Board in Jonesboro Grain Drying Corp., 110 N. L. R. B. 481 (1954), is $250,000.
The Security Plan Office administers 18 trust funds and receives contributions provided for by collective bargaining agreements with some 2,000 employers located in four western States. Some of the funds are invested in health and welfare insurance policies on which over $2,000,000 per annum in premiums is paid to a California insurance carrier. The minimum “direct outflow” requirement established for jurisdictional purposes in Jonesboro, supra, is $50,000. The California insurance carrier remits 4% of the premiums to the Security Plan Office to defray the expense of maintaining an office and processing and paying claims under the health and welfare plan. The Security Plan Office employed and paid at various times from five to ten of the personnel at the Teamsters Building.
The Teamsters Building Association, Inc., is, as are the other Teamsters, a nonprofit corporation. Its stock is held by six Teamster locals including Local 206, one of the defendants charged with unfair labor practices in the complaint before the Board. The Association’s sole function is the ownership and maintenance of the office building in Portland which is occupied by the various Teamster organizations.
We treat the opinion of the Board, as did the Court of Appeals, as being that of members Farmer and Peterson. While Mr. Mur-dock’s concurrence was on the "more limited grounds” that Congress never intended labor unions to be employers with respect to their own employees when engaged in union activities, he concurred in the dismissal by Messrs. Farmer and Peterson. The other two members dissented.
61 Stat. 143, 29 U. S. C. § 159.
S. 2926, 73d Cong., 2d Sess.; S. 1958, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.
“ (2) The term ‘employer’ . . . shall not include . . . any labor organization . . . .” S. 2926, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 3. This bill, while receiving committee approval as altered, was not enacted. When Senator Wagner resubmitted the bill the next year he did so in its original form.
Trustees of Columbia University, 97 N. L. R. B. 424 (1951) (library); Philadelphia Orchestra Association, 97 N. L. R. B. 548 (1951) (orchestra); Armour Research Foundation, 107 N. L. R. B. 1052 (1954) (laboratory); and Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, 109 N. L. R. B. 859 (1954) (radio station).
H. R. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 32.
H. R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 4. The exclusions would have included “any corporation, community chest, fund, or foundation organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.”
See note 10, supra.
See also Hotel Association of St. Louis, 92 N. L. R. B. 1388 (1951), where the Board declined jurisdiction over hotel employers. The Board’s refusal was based on the local character of the hotel business. The District Court for the District of Columbia has held that such refusal is not arbitrary in Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. Leedom, 147 F. Supp. 306 (1957).
In Checker Cab Co., 110 N. L. R. B. 683 (1954), the Board declined jurisdiction of an action involving a purely local employer operating two taxicab companies in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. See also Yellow Cab Company of California, 90 N. L. R. B. 1884 (1950); Skyview Transportation Co., 90 N. L. R. B. 1895 (1950); and Brooklyn Cab Corp., 90 N. L. R. B. 1898 (1950). In these cases the declination of jurisdiction was based on the local character of the operations. We indicate neither approval nor disapproval of these jurisdictional declinations. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the reason, if any, given by the court for granting the petition for certiorari. | What reason, if any, does the court give for granting the petition for certiorari? | [
"case did not arise on cert or cert not granted",
"federal court conflict",
"federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question",
"putative conflict",
"conflict between federal court and state court",
"state court conflict",
"federal court confusion or uncertainty",
"state court confusion or uncertainty",
"federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty",
"to resolve important or significant question",
"to resolve question presented",
"no reason given",
"other reason"
] | [
9
] | sc |
IDAHO SHEET METAL WORKS, INC. v. WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR.
No. 30.
Argued December 8, 1965.
Decided February 24, 1966.
Eli A. Weston argued the cause for petitioner in No. 30. On the brief was T. H. Eberle.
Bessie Margolin argued the cause for petitioner in No. 31. With her on the briefs were Solicitor General Marshall, Ralph S. Spritzer, Philip B. Heymann, Charles Donahue and Caruthers G. Berger.
Charles Donahue argued the cause for respondent in No. 30. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Marshall, Philip B. Heymann, Bessie Margolin, Robert E. Nagle and Caruthers G. Berger.
Lucius E. Burch, Jr., argued the cause for respondents in No. 31. With him on the brief was Tom Mitchell, Jr.
Together with No. 31, Wirtz, Secretary of Labor v. Steepleton General Tire Co., Inc., et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The common question presented by these two cases is the meaning of the phrase “retail or service establishment” as that language is used in the exemptive provisions of the federal wage and hour statute. We first set forth the statute and describe the two cases before us, then examine the history and content of the exempting clause, and finally apply the resulting analysis to the facts of each case.
I.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 enacted a comprehensive scheme providing for minimum wages and overtime pay for workers “engaged in” or “in the production of goods for” interstate and foreign commerce. Among other exemptions, Congress by § 13 (a) (2) of the Act has excluded from the statute’s wage and hour protections those employees working for certain “retail or service” establishments. To qualify for this exemption in its present form, an establishment must meet three tests: first, it must make more than 50% of its annual dollar volume of sales of goods or services within the State; second, it must meet one of four tests designated “(i)-(iv),” chiefly designed to prevent most very large employers from enjoying the exemption; third, it must be a “retail or service establishment.” Regarding this third requirement — which is the focus of this decision — § 13 (a)(2) states that “[a] ‘retail or service establishment’ shall mean an establishment 75 per centum of whose annual dollar volume of sales of goods or services (or of both) is not for resale and is recognized as retail sales or services in the particular industry.”
Of the cases before us, the first one, No. 30, stems from two consolidated actions brought by the Secretary of Labor against Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. (Idaho Sheet). By one action the Secretary sought to enjoin future disregard of the Act’s overtime provisions, and by the other he sought to collect on behalf of one employee unpaid overtime compensation for a period during the year 1960. See §§ 15-17, 52 Stat. 1068-1069, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§ 215-217 (1964 ed.). The ensuing litigation established that Idaho Sheet operates a plant in Burley, Idaho, where it employs about 12 workers to fabricate, install, and maintain sheet metal products. Many articles are sold to individuals, farmers, and local merchants, the plant has display racks to show its wares, and about 60 %■ of sales in number are said to be to “the general public” as opposed to industrial customers. About 83% of the gross income, however, is derived from metal work done on equipment used by five potato processing companies which dehydrate and freeze the potatoes for interstate shipment.
For its defense, Idaho Sheet denied its workers were engaged in or producing goods for interstate commerce. It also claimed to be an exempt retail or service establishment, adducing proof that over 75% of its dollar volume of sales was not for resale and that its officials and salesmen who sell to it regarded the business as retail. The District Court held that Idaho Sheet was outside the interstate commerce coverage of the Act and was in any case exempt. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed on both points and held in favor of the Secretary. 335 F. 2d 952. We granted certiorari limited to the question whether Idaho Sheet was a retail or service establishment within the meaning of the Act. 380 U. S. 905.
In the other case before us, No. 31, the Secretary of Labor sued the Steepleton General Tire Company (Steepleton) and its president to require compliance with the minimum wage, overtime pay, and record-keeping provisions of the Act. Steepleton, which is located in Memphis, Tennessee, and employs about 47 workers, is a franchised tire dealer engaged in the sale, recapping, and repair of tires. Some of Steepleton’s income derives from dealings with private customers but more than half the gross income comes from sales and repairs of tires furnished to businesses operating heavy industrial or construction vehicles or operating fleets of trucks; apparently a sizable though unspecified portion of these commercial customers operated their equipment in interstate commerce.
The District Court determined that Steepleton came within the interstate commerce coverage of the Act, and that issue is no longer in the case. Alleging itself to be exempt under § 13 (a)(2), Steepleton showed that 75% or more of its sales were not for resale and that the industry’s predominant and long-standing use of the word retail applied that term to all tire sales not for resale, despite the commercial character of the tires and the established pattern of quantity discounts. The only explanation offered for this use was that it conformed to many state sales tax statutes. The Secretary showed that the industry sometimes used the word retail in other senses that excluded commercial sales and that commercial customers of Steepleton did not regard their purchases as retail transactions. The District Court held Steepleton to be entitled to the exemption. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court in all respects, 330 F. 2d 804, and we granted certiorari at the behest of the Secretary to consider whether Steepleton qualified as a retail or service establishment. 380 U. S. 904.
The approach of the Sixth Circuit, which took industry usage as controlling, and that of the Ninth Circuit, which rejected it as the sole test, represent irreconcilable interpretations of the critical statutory language. While support can be mustered for both views, we believe the Ninth Circuit is correct and on this point follow our earlier decision in Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U. S. 290. After rejecting the industry’s usage as controlling, we face the further difficult question of what criteria do determine when business transactions are retail under the Act; to this question it is still less easy to return a clear-cut answer, but our analysis of the matter leads us to conclude that neither Idaho Sheet nor Steepleton qualifies as a retail or service establishment.
II.
To construe the present language of the exemption demands a knowledge of its origins. Section 13 (a)(2), as it appeared in the 1938 enactment, used the present phrase “retail or service establishment” to delimit the exemption but did not further define the concept. The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Administrator initially made his interpretation of the retail exemption known through an Interpretative Bulletin and through various official statements. To summarize very generally, the Administrator viewed a retail establishment as one selling goods or services to private individuals for personal or family consumption; sales of these same goods or services to businesses or state agencies remained retail if sold at the normal price charged private consumers or in quantities a private consumer would buy. See Interp. Bull. No. 6, ¶ 14, in 1942 WH Manual, p. 330. However, there were deviations from this consumer-goods standard in favor of employers, notable instances being the exemption of farm implement dealers and linen supply firms supplying commercial customers. See Statements of the Administrator, in 1944-1945 WH Manual, pp. 469-470.
In 1946 this Court decided Roland Co. v. Walling, 326 U. S. 657, holding inter alia that a business engaged in commercial wiring, electrical contracting for industry, and repair and replacement of electric motors and generators did not constitute a retail or service establishment. The opinion used considerable language suggesting that no sale of any article for business or profit-making use as opposed to personal consumption could qualify as a retail sale, a position which supported the result but went far beyond a necessary holding. See 326 U. S., at 673-677. This case, and several others in this vein, prompted the Administrator to report to Congress that certain hitherto exempt classes of business were endangered — notably farm equipment dealers — and to recommend amending legislation. See 1948 Wage and Hour Division, Annual Report, pp. 120-121.
The Administrator proposed, so far as immediately relevant, to define a retail establishment as one deriving 75% of its income from retail sales and then to define as retail sales those made to private individuals for personal or family consumption, sales of the same items to any other customer if not for resale and if similar in type and quantity, and sales to farmers of goods of the type and quantity used on the ordinary farm. When Congress convened in 1949, a number of bills were introduced to amend the Act in various respects. The bill reported out by the House committee and the substitute measure first debated by the House adopted the Administrator’s basic proposal, but a further substitute backed by an opposing coalition and introduced as an amendment during the debates finally prevailed and was sent to the Senate. This bill as passed contained the definition of exempt retail and service establishments that became law in 1949 and which remains the law today. The Senate during the debate of its own committee-reported bill, which did not amend the retail exemption, amended the Senate bill to conform to the House’s revision of §13 (a)(2). Thus, when the House-Senate conference committee met to iron out other differences in the respective versions of the legislation, uniformity in the amendment to § 13 (a) (2) already existed. The debates on the retail exemption in each House were substantial and several legislative documents construe the amended section.
In light of the legislative history, the first question to be faced is whether the 1949 amendment requires the Secretary to treat as retail any sale of goods or services not for resale that is most customarily described or labeled as a retail transaction by those in the industry, acting of course in good faith. If the answer were yes, then both Idaho Sheet and Steepleton would deserve exemptions without more ado, since admittedly the predominant or sole usage of those in the industry applied the term retail to the questioned sales. It should not be said that this reading is without support. Most importantly, it would appear to follow from the most literal reading of the statute; the phrase “recognized as retail ... in the particular industry” well lends itself to an inquiry into how the businessmen concerned term their dealings. Some statements in the debates explicitly foster this reading, for example, the comment by Senator Holland who sponsored the amendment in the Senate that under his approach, “for different commodities ... we have to find the definition which is understood by the people dealing in that industry.” 95 Cong. Rec. 12519. We do not agree with the Government that this reading is necessarily infirm because the Secretary and courts may have to seek a standard or predominant use of the word retail among several uses extant in the industry. Certainly we do not agree with the further suggestion that this literal reading must give the industry self-determination as to whether the exemption applies; courts are not incompetent to distinguish between a legitimized usage fixed by established practice and one recently instituted with the aim of avoiding the law.
On balance, however, the arguments against this literal reading are more persuasive. At the start, such a reading would attribute to Congress a purpose going well beyond its reiterated explanation that the amendment was designed to overturn the sweeping principle of the Roland case. The legislative history is replete with evidence that the target of the amendment was Roland’s proposition that no sale to a business purchaser could be a retail sale, which Senator Holland condemned by comparing the different status it gave to the sale of a batch of towels to a housewife and the same sale to a hotelkeeper. 95 Cong. Rec. 12494. Further, for every suggestion in the debates that Congress intended also wholly to revamp the exemption by substituting an overriding industry-usage test, there are statements that point in the other direction. Thus, Senator Holland observed that his amendment would not undo the commonly held view that quantity sales at discount prices are generally nonretail. It was said that the “recognizing” is done by the Administrator and the courts as well as the merchant, 95 Cong. Rec. 12510 (remarks of Senator Holland), and that due weight must be given to the “actual practice” in the industry, Senate Conf. Majority Statement, 95 Cong. Rec. 14877, and the “well-settled habits of business,” 95 Cong. Rec. 12510 (remarks of Senator Holland). The lists set forth of potentially retail businesses include almost only those selling consumer goods and services. See House Conf. Rep., p. 25 (quoted p. 203, infra); 95 Cong. Rec. 11003-11004 (remarks of Mr. Lucas); 95 Cong. Rec. 12502 (remarks of Senator Holland). There are denials that the industries’ own interpretations of a retail sale will be decisive.
The conclusive consideration for us in rejecting the industry-usage test is that it would compel results flatly inconsistent with those Congress explicitly contemplated and might indeed work a major revolution in the Act’s coverage not acknowledged in any legislative statement or report before us. The prime example of this threatened inconsistency is the problem presented to this Court in 1959 by Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U. S. 290, where a business making small personal loans and purchasing conditional sale contracts from retailers claimed to be an exempt retail or service establishment. Although the company introduced persuasive evidence that the industry regarded its transactions as retail, the Court denied the exemption in the face of the legislative history indicating a limited purpose for the 1949 amendment and containing an express statement that “[t]he amendment does not exempt banks, insurance companies, building and loan associations, credit companies, newspapers, telephone companies, gas and electric utility companies, telegraph companies, etc., because there is no concept of retail selling or servicing in these industries.” House Conf. Rep., pp. 25-26. See Senate Conf. Majority Statement, 95 Cong. Rec. 14877. If weight is to be given to statements about the nonretail status of quantity sales at discounts, see n. 14, supra, congressional intent would be similarly frustrated by the truck tire industry’s retail designation of all sales not for resale no matter how great the quantity and discount. In view of the use of the word retail in the truck tire and credit industries, it would hardly be surprising to find that newspaper, telephone, or gas and electric companies label their sales to consumers as retail. Yet the legislative history is so explicitly opposed to the extension of the retail exemption to such businesses as to provide the final argument against adopting an industry-usage test that could dictate that result.
Since we reject the industry’s usage as the single touchstone, the question arises what meaning is to be given to the term retail. In approaching this question we agree with the Secretary that it is generally helpful to ask first whether the sale of a particular type of goods or services can ever qualify as retail whatever the terms of sale; if and only if the answer is affirmative is it then necessary to determine the terms or circumstances that make a sale of those goods or services a retail sale.
Plainly the typical retail transaction is one involving goods or services that are frequently acquired for family or personal use. As examples of sales that could qualify as retail, the House Conference Report lists those made “by the grocery store, the hardware store, the coal dealer, the automobile dealer selling passenger cars or trucks, the clothing store, the dry goods store, the department store, the paint store, the furniture store, the drug store, the shoe store, the stationer, the lumber dealer, etc. . . .” House Conf. Rep., p. 25 (sale of farm machinery is another example given). See also 95 Cong. Rec. 11003-11004 (remarks of Mr. Lucas); 95 Cong. Rec. 12502 (remarks of Senator Holland). Of course Congress’ conceded intent to overrule the Roland principle means sales of such goods or services can be retail “whether made to private householders or to business users,” House Conf. Rep., p. 25, but the goods and services listed nearly all share the common characteristic that they are often purchased by householders. The legislative recital of telephone, gas and electric, and credit companies along with a number of others as businesses outside the exemption, see p. 202, supra, demonstrates that not everything the consumer purchases can be a retail sale of goods or services, but the breadth of this qualification need not here be explored.
What is important for this decision is that Congress also intended that the retail exemption extend in some measure beyond consumer goods and services to embrace certain products almost never purchased for family or noncommercial use. An indisputable example is the sale of farm implements. See House Conf. Rep., p. 25. Another instance is trucks, at least of some varieties, whose “retailability” is assumed in the legislative history, e. g., 95 Cong. Rec. 12497 (remarks of Senator Holland), and confirmed by the presence of another exemption in the Act that would otherwise be difficult to understand. See also 95 Cong. Rec. 12495 (remarks of Senator Holland) (retailability of modest office desk). We cannot draw a precise line between such articles and those like industrial machinery which can never be sold at retail, see House Conf. Rep., p. 26, but a few characteristics of items like small trucks and farm implements may offer some guidance: their employment is very widespread as is that of consumer goods; they are often distributed in stores or showrooms and by means not dissimilar to those used for consumer goods; and perhaps it can be said that they are very frequently used in commercial activities of limited scope. While the list of strictly commercial items whose sale can be deemed retail is presumably very small, their existence precludes use of the uncomplicated “consumer goods” test proposed by the Administrator in 1949. See pp. 197-198, supra.
Within the category of goods and services that can be sold at retail, naturally not every sale can be so classified. The exemption itself excludes any sale for resale and beyond that, references in the legislative history, n. 14, supra, and common parlance certainly suggest that the term retail becomes less apt as the quantity and the price discount increase in a particular transaction. Again, we do not believe the word usage of the industry' must be given conclusive force. The legislative comments on discounting just cited are to the contrary; and the statute cannot easily be read to make usage control whether a particular sale is rétail after we have rejected that test in deciding whether sale of a given item can ever be retail. The Secretary has in fact quite properly looked carefully at usage and practice in each industry before taking a position, 29 CFR § 779.323 (1965), but he cannot be hamstrung by the terminology of a particular trade. In view of the diversity of structure and marketing practices in different industries, flexibility is certainly appropriate, and we do not here further attempt to adduce general rules. We do note that the considerable discretion possessed by the Secretary as the one responsible for the actual administration of the Act should not be understressed. Boutell v. Walling, 327 U. S. 463, 471; see United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534, 549.
III.
In light of the premises now established, resolution of the two cases before us can be accomplished readily. Turning first to Idaho Sheet Metal Works, we believe it is disqualified as a retail establishment by the 83% of its gross income derived from metal work relating to the potato processing equipment. The company has stressed the wide public it serves, the display racks and other retail facilities in its building, the irregular intervals at which work on the potato equipment is performed, and the company’s lineage tracing back to the “tin shops” of yesterday. All these factors may bear upon the classification of its other sales, and if those were its sole business or three-quarters of it the company might well deserve the exemption. But § 13 (a) (2) is explicit in its treatment of establishments whose sales are variegated: a business is characterized by its sales and no more than 25% of the dollar volume may derive from sales designated nonretail without loss of the exemption. See n. 2, supra. In this instance 83% of the gross income is made by sale or servicing of the potato processing equipment and we do not believe those transactions before us can be labeled retail whatever the particular terms.
This last conclusion follows naturally from the admitted facts. The pretrial order described the potato equipment fabricated and maintained by Idaho Sheet as vats, storage tanks, hoods, elevator buckets, and chutes. Hoods were described at trial by one purchaser as being “five feet square on the bottom and about four feet high where they go to the vent stacks.” He also testified that the tanks held as much as “5,000 pounds of peeled potatoes,” and that chutes were about 12 feet long. If this testimony is not fairly representative of the nature of the equipment under scrutiny, there is no indication of that from Idaho Sheet, upon which lies the burden of establishing the facts requisite to an exemption. Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U. S. 388. The type of equipment described plainly appears to have no private or noncommercial utility. Nor does it bear much resemblance to those strictly commercial articles earlier named that may be sold at retail. Unlike small trucks and fa,rm equipment, the market for these goods is highly limited, and far from being stock items purchased off the shelf, these articles were generally fabricated to meet individual specifications. In the 83% of its business relating to the potato equipment, Idaho Sheet seems hardly distinguishable from “an establishment engaged in the sale and servicing of manufacturing machinery and manufacturing equipment used in the production of goods,” which the House Conference Report flatly stated could not be exempt. House Conf. Rep., p. 26. Since in our view this potato equipment cannot be the subject of a retail sale, we have no occasion to consider the company’s claim that the pricing and quantity of its particular sales of the equipment conform to retail standards.
The second case, involving the Steepleton tire business, is in some respects more intricate. The Government has alleged, and Steepleton does not deny, that better than half the company’s dollar volume derives from sales to companies operating fleets of commercial vehicles and other heavy industrial machinery such as earth-moving equipment. The Government’s first ground for withholding the exemption is that tire transactions relating to large trucks and industrial vehicles are intrinsically nonretail whatever the terms. It analogizes these vehicles to industrial machinery and then would treat the tires just as the trucks. And it stresses the ties between these vehicles and interstate commerce.
Admitting that the argument has force, we do not accept it. Among the few strictly commercial articles that Congress pretty plainly viewed as retailable were trucks in at least some varieties, as we have already shown. No reason appears why the sale of tires for those trucks should be distinguished and not allowed to qualify as retailable items. The strength of the Government’s position lies in its readiness to separate big trucks and tires from little trucks and tires. The Secretary, however, seemingly has chosen not to classify truck tires on this basis but instead treats all truck tires as capable of being sold at retail. A decision of this kind, no doubt turning in part on problems of administration and facets of industry practice, clearly implicates the Secretary’s discretion, and we see no cause to disturb its exercise in this case.
Steepleton is, nevertheless, deprived of the retail establishment exemption because — as the Government alternatively contended — it has failed to show that the tire dealings in question were made on terms and in circumstances that qualify them as retail within the Secretary’s guidelines. The guidelines class as nonretail all sales to fleets of five or more vehicles at “wholesale prices,” a wholesale price being defined as that charged on sales for resale or on sales to 10-vehicle fleets. See n. 18, supra. These guidelines, reportedly designed after inquiry into industry practices, are quite evidently aimed at excluding from the retail category sales generally made at significant discounts and in quantity. Given the common conception of the term retail and references in the legislative history to discount sales, see n. 14, supra, we see no reason not to sustain these guidelines; indeed, the company does not even appear to discuss them, save as is implicit in its claims that the Secretary’s position here does not correspond to word usage in the industry.
In concluding that Steepleton has not proved itself exempt, a certain indefiniteness in the record should be noted. The Government showed at trial that many of the sales were to large fleets, that a number of purchasers said they received discounts, that the practice in the industry was to grant significant discounts for fleet sales, that some sales were for resale or pursuant to bids to public agencies, and pointed out other facts directed at showing nonexemption under the guidelines. Despite this evidence, there is unclarity as to the precise percentages of dollar volume attributable to the various sales that the guidelines label nonretail. However, the burden of proof respecting exemptions is upon the company, as earlier indicated, and since we uphold the Secretary’s test, that burden has not been met. If Steepleton had alleged on appeal that it could meet the Secretary’s standards if they prevailed, even then we would hesitate to order a remand since the Secretary’s position has been known from the outset. In all events, Steepleton has not even claimed in this Court that the Secretary’s standards could be met.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 30 is affirmed; the judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 31 is reversed.
It ⅛ so ordered.
52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§201-219 (1964 ed.). Sections 6-7, codified as §§ 206-207, respectively cover minimum wages and overtime pay. The commerce coverage of the Act, through a special definition of “production,” is drawn in generous terms. See §3 (j), codified as §203 (j).
52 Stat. 1067, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §213 (a)(2) (1964 ed.). The section provides that the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Act shall not apply to:
“(2) any employee employed by any retail or service establishment, more than 50 per centum of which establishment’s annual dollar volume of sales of goods or services is made within the State in which the establishment is located, if such establishment—
“. . . [meets one of four tests, designated ‘(i)-(iv)’ and framed with reference to another section of the Act].
“A 'retail or service establishment’ shall mean an establishment 75 per centum of whose annual dollar volume of sales of goods or services (or of both) is not for resale and is recognized as retail sales or services in the particular industry.”
This requirement has been met by the companies in this case. Section 13 (a) (4) of the Act, added in 1949 by 63 Stat. 917, 29 U. S. C. §213 (a)(4) (1964 ed.), provides that an establishment that makes or processes the goods it sells may qualify as exempt if it meets the tests of § 13 (a) (2) and “is recognized as a retail establishment in the particular industry” and makes more than 85% of its annual dollar volume of sales of such goods within the State. So far as the companies in this ease may be deemed to make or process the goods they sell, the Government is apparently satisfied that the added requirements of § 13 (a) (4) have been met or at least is unwilling to rely upon them.
These four tests were added to § 13 (a) (2) in 1961 by 75 Stat. 71. The Government has not suggested that this amendment would disqualify either of the companies in the present case.
The 1938 version read: “(a) The provisions of sections 6 and 7 shall not apply with respect to . . . (2) any employee engaged in any retail or service establishment the greater part of whose selling or servicing is in intrastate commerce.” 52 Stat. 1067.
This Bulletin, designated No. 6, appears along with other official statements in various editions of the BNA Wage and Hour Manual (hereafter cited as WH Manual), e. g., 1942 edition. The Secretary’s present views are stated in 29 CFR §§ 779-779.515 (1965).
See Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co., 327 U. S. 173; Boutell v. Walling, 327 U. S. 463. See also McComb v. Factory Stores Co., 81 F. Supp. 403; McComb v. Diebert, 16 CCH Labor Cas. ¶ 64,982.
The bill reported out of committee was H. R. 3190, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., accompanied by H. R. Rep. No. 267. The first substitute was H. R. 5856, brought to debate by EL Res. 183. The final, successful version retained the number H. R. 5856 but was drawn from H. R. 5894. See generally 6 Lab. Rel. Rep., p. 90:459 (1961).
The only difference between the 1949 version of § 13 (a) (2) and current law derives from the 1961 amendment to the section, which is not relevant in this case. See n. 4, supra, and accompanying text.
The bill reported out of committee was S. 653, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., accompanied by S. Rep. No. 640. The amendment was offered at 95 Cong. Rec. 12491 and passed at 95 Cong. Rec. 12520.
The principal debates appear at various points in 95 Cong. Rec. 11002-11203 (House), 12490-12520 (Senate). No initial committee reports discuss the ultimately successful version of § 13 (a) (2) but a pertinent statement of the House members of the conference eommittee appears in H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1453, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 24-26 (hereafter cited as House Conf. Rep.). There is also a relevant but less authoritative statement of the majority of Senate conferees (hereafter cited as Senate Conf. Majority Statement) appearing at 95 Cong. Rec. 14877.
Other comments in some measure favoring the most literal construction are those assuming that each industry has an established understanding of what is a retail sale, e. g., 95 Cong. Rec. 12502 (remarks of Senator Holland), 12516 (remarks of Senator Taft); those few which seem to equate “recognized as retail” with “regarded as retail,” 95 Cong. Rec. 11003 (remarks of Mr. Lucas, sponsor of the prevailing version in the House), 12502 (remarks of Senator Holland); and one or two suggesting that a discount sale may qualify as retail, 95 Cong. Rec. 11003 (remarks of Mr. Lucas), 11199 (remarks of Mr. McConnell).
See House Conf. Rep., p. 24 (“This clarification [the amended §13 (a)(2)] is needed in order to obviate the sweeping ruling of the Administrator and the courts that no sale of goods or services for business use is retail. See Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling . . . .”); 95 Cong. Rec. 11003 (remarks of Mr. Lucas); 95 Cong. Rec. 11203 (remarks of Mr. Celler).
“Of course if ... [a sale is ‘made in such quantity that discounts are allowed’] it comes in the category of wholesale sales.” 95 Cong. Rec. 12501. Perhaps more ambiguously, Senator Holland also stated: “If sales were made in sufficient quantity so there would be a discount and they would be regarded not as retail sales, but as wholesale sales, they would lose their exemption.” 95 Cong. Rec. 12497. See also 95 Cong. Rec. 12505. But cf. 95 Cpng. Rec. 11003 (remarks of Mr. Lucas).
“Mr. DOUGLAS. I understand that the interpretation which would be made would be that given to 'retail sale’ by a trade association.
“Mr. HOLLAND. That is one criterion, of course; but I do not believe the Senator from Illinois, and certainly not the Senator from Florida, would wish to delegate full authority in the matter to a trade association or any other interested group.” 95 Cong. Rec. 12501.
See also 95 Cong. Rec. 12510 (remarks of Senator Holland).
Section 13 (a) (19), added in 1961 by 75 Stat. 73, 29 U. S. C. § 213 (a) (19) (1964 ed.), exempts from the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements “any employee of a retail or service establishment which is primarily engaged in the business of selling automobiles, trucks, or farm implements” regardless of whether the establishment meets the further tests of §13 (a)(2), notably those added in 1961, see n. 4, supra, and accompanying text. Quite evidently this section contemplates that a business primarily selling trucks may be a retail establishment.
The company relies upon Wirtz v. Modern Trashmoval, Inc., 323 F. 2d 451, in which the Fourth Circuit as an alternative ground of decision held a trash collection business to be a retail or service establishment under the Act. We need go no further than to say the case is quite distinguishable; trash removal is not only a widespread need in the commercial world but is required by private families.
29 CFR §779.373 (1965) relevantly provides that for purposes of § 13 (a) (2) “all sales of tires, tubes, accessories and tire repair services, including retreading and recapping” are classified as retail, with a series of exceptions including:
“(d) Sales to fleet accounts at wholesale prices: ... a ‘fleet account’ is a customer operating five or more automobiles or trucks for business purposes. Wholesale prices ... are prices equivalent to, or less than, those typically charged on sales for resale. ... If the establishment makes no sales of truck tires for resale, the wholesale price . . . [is] the price charged ... on sales of truck tires to fleet accounts operating 10 or more commercial vehicles, or if the establishment makes no such sales ... [it is] the price typically charged in the area on [such] sales . . . .” | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the reason, if any, given by the court for granting the petition for certiorari. | What reason, if any, does the court give for granting the petition for certiorari? | [
"case did not arise on cert or cert not granted",
"federal court conflict",
"federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question",
"putative conflict",
"conflict between federal court and state court",
"state court conflict",
"federal court confusion or uncertainty",
"state court confusion or uncertainty",
"federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty",
"to resolve important or significant question",
"to resolve question presented",
"no reason given",
"other reason"
] | [
10
] | sc |
April 4, 1955.
No. 186.
General Drivers, Warehousemen, and Helpers, Local Union No. 89, et al. v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.
Argued March 31-April 1, 1955.
Decided April 4, 1955.
Herbert S. Thatcher and William S. Tyson argued the cause for petitioners.
J. Albert Woll, David Previant and Ralph H. Logan were with Mr. Thatcher on the brief.
By special leave of Court, Dominick L. Manoli argued the cause for the National Labor Relations Board, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, David P. Findling and Norton J. Come.
Nelson Helm argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Francis E. Koch.
Certiorari, 348 U. S. 813, to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
Per Curiam:
The judgment is reversed. Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468; Bus Employees v. Wisconsin Board, 340 U. S. 383. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the type of decision made by the court among the following: Consider "opinion of the court (orally argued)" if the court decided the case by a signed opinion and the case was orally argued. For the 1791-1945 terms, the case need not be orally argued, but a justice must be listed as delivering the opinion of the Court. Consider "per curiam (no oral argument)" if the court decided the case with an opinion but without hearing oral arguments. For the 1791-1945 terms, the Court (or reporter) need not use the term "per curiam" but rather "The Court [said],""By the Court," or "By direction of the Court." Consider "decrees" in the infrequent type of decisions where the justices will typically appoint a special master to take testimony and render a report, the bulk of which generally becomes the Court's decision. This type of decision usually arises under the Court's original jurisdiction and involves state boundary disputes. Consider "equally divided vote" for cases decided by an equally divided vote, for example when a justice fails to participate in a case or when the Court has a vacancy. Consider "per curiam (orally argued)" if no individual justice's name appears as author of the Court's opinion and the case was orally argued. Consider "judgment of the Court (orally argued)" for formally decided cases (decided the case by a signed opinion) where less than a majority of the participating justices agree with the opinion produced by the justice assigned to write the Court's opinion. | What type of decision did the court make? | [
"opinion of the court (orally argued)",
"per curiam (no oral argument)",
"decrees",
"equally divided vote",
"per curiam (orally argued)",
"judgment of the Court (orally argued)",
"seriatim"
] | [
4
] | sc |
CHANCE v. CALIFORNIA.
No. 306,
Misc.
Decided November 6, 1967.
Marshall W. Krause for petitioner.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Robert R. Granucci and Michael J. Phelan, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
Mr. Justice Harlan
would affirm for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, 500-503, and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the state of the court in which the case originated. Consider the District of Columbia as a state. | What is the state of the court in which the case originated? | [
"Alabama",
"Alaska",
"American Samoa",
"Arizona",
"Arkansas",
"California",
"Colorado",
"Connecticut",
"Delaware",
"District of Columbia",
"Federated States of Micronesia",
"Florida",
"Georgia",
"Guam",
"Hawaii",
"Idaho",
"Illinois",
"Indiana",
"Iowa",
"Kansas",
"Kentucky",
"Louisiana",
"Maine",
"Marshall Islands",
"Maryland",
"Massachusetts",
"Michigan",
"Minnesota",
"Mississippi",
"Missouri",
"Montana",
"Nebraska",
"Nevada",
"New Hampshire",
"New Jersey",
"New Mexico",
"New York",
"North Carolina",
"North Dakota",
"Northern Mariana Islands",
"Ohio",
"Oklahoma",
"Oregon",
"Palau",
"Pennsylvania",
"Puerto Rico",
"Rhode Island",
"South Carolina",
"South Dakota",
"Tennessee",
"Texas",
"Utah",
"Vermont",
"Virgin Islands",
"Virginia",
"Washington",
"West Virginia",
"Wisconsin",
"Wyoming",
"United States",
"Interstate Compact",
"Philippines",
"Indian",
"Dakota"
] | [
5
] | sc |
KENNEDY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, v. MENDOZA-MARTINEZ.
No. 2.
Argued October 10-11, 1961.
Restored to the calendar for reargument April 2, 1962.
Reargued December 4, 1962.
Decided February 18, 1963.
Bruce J. Terris reargued the cause for appellant in No. 2. J. William Doolittle reargued the cause for appellant in No. 3. On the briefs in both cases were Solicitor Gen eral Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Oscar H. Davis, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit.
Thomas R. Davis reargued the cause for appellee in No. 2. With him on the brief was John W. Willis.
Leonard B. Boudin reargued the cause for appellee in No. 3. With him on the brief was Victor Rabinowitz.
Jack Wasserman, David Carliner, Rowland Watts, Stephen J. Poliak and Osmond K. Fraenkel filed briefs for the American Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance in both cases.
Milton V. Freeman, Robert E. Herzstein, Horst Kurnik and Charles A. Reich filed a brief, urging affirmance in No. 3, for Angelika Schneider, as amicus curiae.
Together with No. 3, Rusk, Secretary of State, v. Cort, on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, argued October 11, 1961, decided in part and set for reargument April 2, 1962, reargued December 4-5, 1962.
Mr. Justice Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are called upon in these two cases to decide the grave and fundamental problem, common to both, of the constitutionality of Acts of Congress which divest an American of his citizenship for “[departing from or remaining outside of the jurisdiction of the United States in time of war or . . . national emergency for the purpose of evading or avoiding training and service” in the Nation’s armed forces.
I. The Facts.
A. Mendoza-Martines — No. 2.
The facts of both cases are not in dispute. Mendoza-Martinez, the appellee in No. 2, was born in this country-in 1922 and therefore acquired American citizenship by birth. By reason of his parentage, he also, under Mexican law, gained Mexican citizenship, thereby possessing dual nationality. In 1942 he departed from this country and went to Mexico solely, as he admits, for the purpose of evading military service in our armed forces. He concedes that he remained there for that sole purpose until November 1946, when he voluntarily returned to this country. In 1947, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, he pleaded guilty to and was convicted of evasion of his service obligations in violation of § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. He served the imposed sentence of a year and a day. For all that appears in the record, he was, upon his release, allowed to reside undisturbed in this country until 1953, when, after a lapse of five years, he was served with a warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings. This was premised on the assertion that, by remaining outside the United States to avoid military service after September 27, 1944, when §401 (j) took effect, he had lost his American citizenship. Following hearing, the Attorney General’s special inquiry officer sustained the warrant and ordered that Mendoza-Martinez be deported as an alien. He appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals of the Department of Justice, which dismissed his appeal.
Thereafter, Mendoza-Martinez brought a declaratory judgment action in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California, seeking a declaration of his status as a citizen, of the unconstitutionality of § 401 (j), and of the voidness of all orders of deportation directed against him. A single-judge District Court in an unreported decision entered judgment against Mendoza-Martinez in 1955, holding that by virtue of § 401 (j), which the court held to be constitutional, he had lost his nationality by remaining outside the jurisdiction of the United States after September 27, 1944. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, 238 F. 2d 239. This Court, in 1958, Mendoza-Martinez v. Mackey, 356 U. S. 258, granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the cause to the District Court for reconsideration in light of its decision a week earlier in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86.
On September 24, 1958, the District Court announced its new decision, also unreported, that in light of Trop §401 (j) is unconstitutional because not based on any “rational nexus . . . between the content of a specific power in Congress and the action of Congress in carrying that power into execution.” On' direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1252, this Court noted probable jurisdiction, 359 U. S. 933, and then of its own motion remanded the cause, this time with permission to the parties to amend the pleadings to put in issue the question of whether the facts as determined on the draft-evasion conviction in 1947 collaterally estopped the Attorney General from now claiming that Mendoza-Martinez had lost his American citizenship while in Mexico. Mackey v. Mendoza-Martinez, 362 U. S. 384.
The District Court on remand held that the Government was not collaterally estopped because the 1947 criminal proceedings entailed no determination of Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship. The court, however, reaffirmed its previous holding that § 401 (j) is unconstitutional, adding as a further basis of invalidity that § 401 (j) is “essentially penal in character and deprives the plaintiff of procedural due process. . . . [T]he requirements of procedural due process are not satisfied by the administrative hearing of the Immigration Service nor in this present proceedings.” The Attorney General’s current appeal is from this decision. Probable jurisdiction was noted on February 20, 1961, 365 U. S. 809. The case was argued last Term, and restored to the calendar for reargument this Term, 369 U. S. 832.
B. Cort — No. 3.
Cort, the appellee in No. 3, is also a native-born American, born in Boston in 1927. Unlike Mendoza-Martinez, he has no dual nationality. His wife and two young children are likewise American citizens by birth. Following receipt of his M. D. degree from the Yale University School of Medicine in 1951, he went to England for the purpose of undertaking a position as a Research Fellow at Cambridge University. He had earlier registered in timely and proper fashion for the draft and shortly before his departure supplemented his regular Selective Service registration by registering under the newly enacted Doctors Draft Act. In late 1951 he received a series of letters from the American Embassy in London instructing him to deliver his passport to it to be made “valid only for return to the United States.” He did not respond to these demands because, he now says in an affidavit filed in the trial court in this proceeding, “I believed that they were unlawful and I did not wish to subject myself to this and similar forms of political persecution then prevalent in the United States. ... I was engaged in important research and teaching work in physiology and I desired to continue earning a livelihood for my family.” Cort had been a member of the Communist Party while he was a medical student at Yale from 1946 to 1951, except for the academic year 1948-1949 when he was in England. In late 1952, while still in England at Cambridge, he accepted a teaching position for the following academic year at Harvard University Medical School. When, however, the school discovered through further correspondence that he had not yet fulfilled his military obligations; it advised him that it did not regard his teaching position'as essential enough to support his deferment from military service in order to enter upon it. Thereafter, his local draft board in Brookline, Massachusetts, notified him in February 1953 that his request for deferment was denied and that he should report within 30 days for a physical examination either in Brookline or in Frankfurt, Germany. On June 4 and on July 3 the draft board again sent Cort notices to report for a physical examination, the first notice for examination on July 1 in Brookline, and the second for examination within 30 days in Frankfurt. He did not appear at either place, and the board on August 13 ordered him to report for induction on September 14, 1953. He did not report, and consequently he was indicted in December 1954 for violation of § 12 (a) of the Selective Service Act of 1948 by reason of his failure to report for induction. This indictment is still outstanding. His complaint in this action states that he did not report for induction because he believed “that the induction order was not issued in good faith to secure his military services, that his past political associations and present physical disabilities made him ineligible for such service, and that he was being ordered to report back to the United States to be served with a Congressional committee subpoena or indicted under the Smith Act . . . .” Meanwhile, the British Home Office had refused to renew his residence permit, and in mid-1954 he and his family moved to Prague, Czechoslovakia, where he took a position as Senior Scientific Worker at the Cardiovascular Institute. He has lived there since.
In April 1959, his previous United States passport having long since expired, Cort applied at the American Embassy in Prague for a new one. His complaint in this action states that he wanted the passport “in order to return to the United States with his wife and children so that he might fulfill his obligations under the Selective Service laws and his wife might secure medical treatment for multiple sclerosis.” Mrs. Cort received a passport and came to this country temporarily in late 1959, both for purposes of medical treatment and to facilitate arrangements for her husband’s return. Cort’s application, however, was denied on the ground that he had, by his failure to report for induction on September 14, 1953, as ordered, remained outside the country to avoid military service and thereby automatically forfeited his American citizenship by virtue of § 349 (a) (10) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which had superseded § 401 (j). The State Department’s Passport Board of Review affirmed the finding of expatriation, and the Department’s legal adviser affirmed the decision. Cort, through counsel, thereupon brought this suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that he is a citizen of the United States, for an injunction against enforcement of §349 (a) (10) because of its unconstitutionality, and for an order directing revocation of the certificate of loss of nationality and issuance of a United States passport to him. Pursuant to Cort’s demand, a three-judge court was convened. The court held that he had remained outside the United States to evade military service, but that § 349 (a) (10) is unconstitutional because “We perceive no substantial difference between the constitutional issue in the Trop case and the one facing us.” It therefore concluded that Cort is a citizen of this country and enjoined the Secretary of State from withholding a passport from Cort on the ground that he is not a citizen and from otherwise interfering with his rights of citizenship. Cort v. Herter, 187 F. Supp. 683.
The Secretary of State appealed directly to this Court, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1252, 1253, which postponed the question of jurisdiction to the hearing of the case on the merits. 365 U. S. 808. The preliminary question of jurisdiction was affirmatively resolved last Term, Rusk v. Cort, 369 U. S. 367, leaving the issue of the validity of § 349 (a) (10) for decision now, after reargument. 369 U. S., at 380.
Before we consider the essential question in these cases, the constitutionality of §§401 (j) and 349 (a)(10), two preliminary issues peculiar to No. 2 must be discussed.
II. The Three-Judge Court Issue.
At the threshold in Mendoza-Martinez’ case is the question whether the proceeding should have been heard by a three-judge District Court convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2282, which requires such a tribunal as a prerequisite to the granting of any “interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution of the United States . . . .” If § 2282 governs this litigation, we are once again faced with the prospect of a remand and a new trial, this time by a three-judge panel. We are, however, satisfied that the case was properly heard by a single district judge, as both parties urge.
In the complaint under which the case was tried the first and second times, Mendoza-Martinez asked for no injunctive relief, and none was granted. In the amended complaint which he filed in 1960 to put in issue the question of collateral estoppel, he added a prayer asking the court to adjudge “that defendants herein are enjoined and restrained henceforth from enforcing” all deportation orders against him. However, it is abundantly clear from the amended trial stipulation which was entered into by the parties and approved by the judge to “govern the course of the trial,” that the issues were framed so as not to contemplate any injunctive relief. The first question was articulated only in terms of whether the Government was “herein estopped by reason of the indictment and conviction of plaintiff for [draft evasion] . . . from denying that the plaintiff is now a national and citizen of the United States.” The second question asked only for a declaration as to whether § 401 (j) was “unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied to the plaintiff herein.” The conclusion that no request for injunctive relief nor even any contemplation of it attended the case as it went to trial is borne out by the total lack of reference to injunctive relief in the District Court’s memorandum opinion, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgment. See 192 F. Supp. 1. The relief granted was merely a declaration that the 1944 Amendment “is unconstitutional, both on its face and as applied to the plaintiff herein,” and “ [t]hat the plaintiff is now, and ever since the date of his birth has been, a national and citizen of the United States.” Thus, despite the amendment to Mendoza-Martinez’ complaint before the third trial, it is clear that neither the parties nor the judge at any relevant time regarded the action as one in which injunctive relief was material to the disposition of the case. Since no injunction restraining the enforcement of § 401 (j) was at issue, § 2282 was not in terms applicable to require the convening of a three-judge District Court.
Whether an action solely for declaratory relief would under all circumstances be inappropriate for consideration by a three-judge court we need not now decide, for it is clear that in the present case the congressional policy underlying the statute was not frustrated by trial before a single judge. The legislative history of § 2282 and of its complement, § 2281, requiring three judges to hear in-junctive suits directed against federal and state legislation, respectively, indicates that these sections were enacted to prevent a single federal judge from being able to paralyze totally the operation of an entire regulatory scheme, either state or federal, by issuance of a broad injunctive order. Section 2281 “was a means of protecting the increasing body of state legislation regulating economic enterprise from invalidation by a conventional suit in equity. . . . The crux of the business is procedural protection against an improvident state-wide doom by a federal court of a state’s legislative policy. This was the aim of Congress . . . .” Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 250-251. Repeatedly emphasized during the congressional debates on § 2282 were the heavy pecuniary costs of the unforeseen and debilitating interruptions in the administration of federal law which could be wrought by a single judge’s order, and the great burdens entailed in coping with harassing actions brought one after another to challenge the operation of an entire statutory scheme, wherever jurisdiction over government officials could be acquired, until a judge was ultimately found who would grant the desired injunction.- 81 Cong. Rec. 479-481, 2142-2143 (1937).
The present action, which in form was for declaratory relief and which in its agreed substance did not contemplate injunctive relief, involves none of the dangers to which Congress was addressing itself. The relief sought and the order entered affected an Act of Congress in a totally noncoercive fashion. There was no interdiction of the operation at large of the statute. It was declared unconstitutional, but without even an injunctive sanction against the application of the statute by the Government to Mendoza-Martinez. Pending review in the Court of Appeals and in this Court, the Government has been free to continue to apply the statute. That being the case, there is here no conflict with the purpose of Congress to provide for the convocation of a three-judge court whenever the operation of a statutory scheme may be immediately disrupted before a final judicial determination of the validity of the trial court’s order can be obtained. Thus there was no reason whatever in this case to invoke the special and extraordinary procedure of a three-judge court. Compare Schneider v. Rusk, post, p. 224, decided this day.
III. The Collateral-Estoppel Issue.
Mendoza-Martinez’ second amended complaint, filed in 1960 pursuant to the suggestion of this Court earlier that year, charged that “the government of the United States has admitted the fact of his United States citizenship by virtue of the indictment and judgment of conviction. [in 1947 for draft evasion] . . . and is therefore collaterally estopped now to deny such citizenship . . . The District Court rejected this assertion. Mendoza-Martinez renews it here as an alternative ground for upholding the judgment entered below “That the plaintiff is now, and ever since the date of his birth has been, a national and citizen of the United States.” 192 F. Supp., at 3.
We too reject Mendoza-Martinez’ contention on this point. His argument, stated more fully, is as follows: The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 applies only to citizens and resident aliens. Both the indictment and the judgment spoke in terms of his having remained in Mexico for the entire period from November 15, 1942, until November 1,1946, when he returned to this country. For the period from September 27, 1944, when § 401 (j) became effective, until November 1, 1946, he could not have been in violation of our draft laws unless he remained a citizen of the United States, since the draft laws do not apply to nonresident aliens. Therefore, he concludes, the Government must be taken to have admitted that he did not lose his citizenship by remaining outside the country after September 27, 1944, because it charged him with draft evasion for that period as well as for the period preceding that date.
It is true that “as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered,” Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351, 353, the findings in a prior criminal proceeding may estop a party in a subsequent civil action, Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 340 U. S. 558, 568-569, and that the United States may be estopped to deny even an erroneous prior determination of status, United States v. Moser, 266 U. S. 236. However, Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship status was not at issue in his trial for draft evasion. Putting aside the fact that he pleaded guilty, which in itself may support the conclusion that his citizenship status was not litigated and thereby without more preclude his assertion of estoppel, the basic flaw in his argument is in the assertion that he was charged with a continuing violation of the draft laws while he remained in Mexico, particularly after September 27, 1944, the date on which § 401 (j) became effective. He was in fact charged with a violation “on or about November 15, 1942,” because he “did knowingly evade service ... in that he did knowingly depart from the United States and go to a foreign country, namely: Mexico, for the purpose of evading service . . . This constituted the alleged violation. The additional language that he “did there remain until on or about November 1, 1946,” was merely surplusage in relation to the substantive offense, although it might, for example, serve a purpose in relation to problems connected with the tolling of the statute of limitations. No language appears charging the elements of violation — knowledge and purpose to evade — in connection with it. The only crime charged is what happened “on or about November 15, 1942,” and conviction thereon, even if it had entailed a finding as to Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship on that date, in nowise estopped the Government with reference to his status after September 27, 1944.
The trial court’s judgment was worded no differently. Mendoza-Martinez was convicted of:
“Having on or about November 15th 1942, knowingly departed from the United States to Mexico, for the purpose of evading service in the land or naval forces of the United States and having remained there until on or about November 1st 1946.”
Again, the language relating to the time during which Mendoza-Martinez remained in Mexico was not tied to the words stating knowledge and purpose to evade service. Thus, the conviction entailed no actual or necessary finding about Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship status between September 27, 1944, and November 1,1946, and the Government was not estopped from denying his citizenship in the present proceedings.
IV. The Constitutional Issues.
A. Basic Principles.
Since the validity of an Act of Congress is involved, we begin our analysis mindful that the function we are now discharging is “the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called upon to perform.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (separate opinion of Holmes, J.). This responsibility we here fulfill with all respect for the powers of Congress, but with recognition of the transcendent status of our Constitution.
We deal with the contending constitutional arguments in the context of certain basic and sometimes conflicting principles. Citizenship is a most precious right. It is expressly guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which speaks in the most positive terms. The Constitution is silent about the permissibility of involuntary forfeiture of citizenship rights. While it confirms citizenship rights, plainly there are imperative obligations of citizenship, performance of which Congress in the exercise of its powers may constitutionally exact. One of the most important of these is to serve the country in time of war and national emergency. The powers of Congress to require military service for the common defense are broad and far-reaching,’ for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact. Similarly, Congress has broad power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact legislation for the regulation of foreign affairs. Latitude in this area is necessary to ensure effec-tuation of this indispensable function of government.
These principles, stemming on the one hand from the preeious nature of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizenship, and on the other from the powers of Congress and the related obligations of individual citizens, are urged upon us by the parties here. The Government argues that §§401 (j) and 349 (a)(10) are valid as an exercise of Congress’ power over foreign affairs, of its war power, and of the inherent sovereignty of the Government. Appellees urge the provisions’ invalidity as not within any of the powers asserted, and as imposing a cruel and unusual punishment.
We recognize at the outset that we are confronted here with an issue of the utmost import. Deprivation of citizenship — particularly American citizenship, which is “one of the most valuable rights in the world today,” Report of the President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (1953), 235 — has grave practical consequences. An expatriate who, like Cort, had no other nationality becomes a stateless person — a person who not only has no rights as an American citizen, but no membership in any national entity whatsoever. “Such individuals as do not possess any nationality enjoy, in general, no protection whatever, and if they are aggrieved by a State they have no means of redress, since there is no State which is competent to take up their case. As far as the Law of Nations is concerned, there is, apart from restraints of morality or obligations expressly laid down by treaty . . . no restriction whatever to cause a State to abstain from maltreating to any extent such stateless individuals.” 1 Oppenheim, International Law (8th ed., Lauterpacht, 1955), § 291, at 640. The calamity is “[n]ot the loss of specific rights, then, but the loss of a community willing and able to guarantee any rights whatsoever . . . Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), 294. The stateless person may end up shunted from nation to nation, there being no one obligated or willing to receive him, or, as in Cort’s case, may receive the dubious sanctuary of a Communist regime lacking the essential liberties precious to American citizenship.
B. The Perez and Trop Cases.
The basic principles here involved, the gravity of the issue, and the arguments bearing upon Congress’ power to forfeit citizenship were considered by the Court in relation to different provisions of the Nationality Act of 1940 in two cases decided on the same day less than five years ago: Perez v. Brownell, 356 U. S. 44, and Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86.
In Perez, § 401 (e), which imposes loss of nationality for “[vjoting in a political election in a foreign state or participating in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory,” was upheld by a closely divided Court as a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to regulate foreign affairs. The Court reasoned that since withdrawal of citizenship of Americans who vote in foreign elections is reasonably calculated to effect the avoidance of embarrassment in the conduct of foreign relations, such withdrawal is within the power of Congress, acting under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Since the Court sustained the application of § 401 (e) to denationalize Perez, it did not have to deal with § 401 (j), upon which the Government had also relied, and it expressly declined to rule on the constitutionality of that section, 356 U. S., at 62. There were three opinions written in dissent. The principal one, that of The Chief Justice, recognized “that citizenship may not only be voluntarily renounced through exercise of the right of expatriation but also by other actions in derogation of undivided allegiance to this country,” id., at 68, but concluded that “[t]he mere act of voting in a foreign election, however, without regard to the circumstances attending the participation, is not sufficient to show a voluntary abandonment of citizenship,” id., at 78.
In Trop, § 401 (g), forfeiting the citizenship of any American who is guilty of “[djeserting the military or naval forces of the United States in time of war, provided he is convicted thereof by court martial and as the result of such conviction is dismissed or dishonorably discharged . . . ,” was declared unconstitutional. There was no opinion of the Court. The Chief Justice wrote an opinion for four members of the Court, concluding that § 401 (g) was invalid for the same reason that he had urged as to § 401 (e) in his dissent in Perez, and that it was also invalid as a cruel and unusual punishment imposed in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Brennan conceded that it is “paradoxical to justify as constitutional the expatriation of the citizen who has committed no crime by voting in a Mexican political election, yet find unconstitutional a statute which provides for the expatriation of a soldier guilty of the very serious crime of desertion in time of war,” 356 U. S., at 105. Notwithstanding, he concurred because “the requisite rational relation between this statute and the war power does not appear . . . ,” id., at 114. Justice Frankfurter, joined by three other Justices, dissented on the ground that § 401 (g) did not impose punishment at all, let alone cruel and unusual punishment, and was within the war powers of Congress.
C. Sections Jfil (;) and S/fi (a) (10) as Punishment.
The present cases present for decision the constitutionality of a section not passed upon in either Perez or Trop — § 401 (j), added in 1944, and its successor and present counterpart, §349 (a) (10) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. We have come to the conclusion that there is a basic question in the present cases, the answer to which obviates a choice here between the powers of Congress and the constitutional guarantee of citizenship. That issue is whether the statutes here, which automatically — -without prior court or administrative proceedings — impose forfeiture of citizenship, are essentially penal in character, and consequently have deprived the appellees of their citizenship without due process of law and without according them the rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, including notice, confrontation, compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, trial by jury, and assistance of counsel. This issue was not relevant in Trop because, in contrast to §§ 401 (j) and 349 (a) (10), § 401 (g) required conviction by court-martial for desertion before forfeiture of citizenship could be inflicted. In Perez the contention that § 401 (e) was penal in character was impliedly rejected by the Court’s holding, based on legislative history totally different from that underlying §§ 401 (j) and 349 (a) (10), that voting in a political election in a foreign state “is regulable by Congress under its power to deal with foreign affairs.” 356 U. S., at 59. Compare Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114; Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189; Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603. Indeed, in Trop The Chief Justice observed that “Section 401 (j) decrees loss of citizenship without providing any semblance of procedural due process whereby the guilt of the draft evader may be determined before the sanction is imposed . . . ,” 356 U. S., at 94, and Justice Frankfurter in dissent alluded to the due process overtones of the requirement in § 401 (g) of prior conviction for desertion by court-martial, id., at 116-117.
It is fundamental that the great powers of Congress to conduct war and to regulate the Nation’s foreign relations are subject to the constitutional requirements of due process. The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with fundamental constitutional guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit governmental action. “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.” Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 120-121. The rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are “preserved to every one accused of crime who is not attached to the army, or navy, or militia in actual service.” Id., at 123. “[I]f society is disturbed by civil commotion — if the passions of men are aroused and the restraints of law weakened, if not disregarded — these safeguards need, and should receive, the watchful care of those intrusted with the guardianship of the Constitution and laws. In no other way can we transmit to posterity unimpaired the blessings of liberty, consecrated by the sacrifices of the Revolution.” Id., at 124.
We hold §§ 401 (j) and 349 (a)(10) invalid because in them Congress has plainly employed the sanction of deprivation of nationality as a punishment — for the offense of leaving or remaining outside the country to evade military service — without affording the procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Our forefathers “intended to safeguard the people of this country from punishment without trial by duly constituted courts. . . . And even the courts to which this important function was entrusted were commanded to stay their hands until and unless certain tested safeguards were observed. An accused in court must be tried by an impartial jury, has a right to be represented by counsel, [and] must be clearly informed of the charge against him . . . .” United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303, 317. See also Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, 235-238.
As the Government concedes, §§ 401 (j) and 349 (a) (10) automatically strip an American of his citizenship, with concomitant deprivation “of all that makes life worth living,” Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276, 284-285, whenever a citizen departs from or remains outside the jurisdiction of this country for the purpose of evading his military obligations. Conviction for draft evasion, as Cort’s case illustrates, is not prerequisite to the operation of this sanction. Independently of prosecution, forfeiture of citizenship attaches when the statutory set of facts develops. It is argued that the availability after the fact of administrative and judicial proceedings, including the machinery the Court approved last Term in Rusk v. Cort, 369 U. S. 367, to contest the validity of the sanction meets the measure of due process. But the legislative history and judicial expression with respect to every congressional enactment relating to the provisions in question dating back to 1865 establish that forfeiture of citizenship is a penalty for the act of leaving or staying outside the country to avoid the draft. This being so, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments mandate that this punishment cannot be imposed without a prior criminal trial and all its incidents, including indictment, notice, confrontation, jury trial, assistance of counsel, and compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. If the sanction these sections impose is punishment, and it plainly is, the procedural safeguards required as incidents of a criminal prosecution are lacking. We need- go no further.
The punitive nature of the sanction here is evident under the tests traditionally applied to determine whether an Act of Congress is penal or regulatory in character, even though in other cases this problem has been extremely difficult and elusive of solution. Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment, whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment — retribution and deterrence, whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose, assigned are all relevant to the inquiry, and may often point in differing directions. Absent conclusive evidence of congressional intent as to the penal nature of a statute, these factors-must be considered in relation to the statute on its face. Here, although we are convinced that application of these criteria to the face of the statutes supports the conclusion that they are punitive, a detailed examination along such lines is unnecessary, because the objective manifestations of congressional purpose indicate conclusively that the provisions in question can only be interpreted as punitive. A study of the history of the predecessor of §401 (j), which “is worth a volume of logic,” New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349, coupled with a reading of Congress’ reasons for enacting § 401 (j), compels a conclusion that the statute’s primary function is to serve as an additional penalty for a special category of draft evader. Compare Trop v. Dulles, supra, 356 U. S., at 107-110 (Brennan, J., concurring).
1. The Predecessor Statute and Judicial Construction.
The subsections here in question have their origin in part of a Civil War “Act to amend the several Acts heretofore passed to provide for the Enrolling and Calling out the National Forces, and for other Purposes.” Act of March 3,1865,13 Stat. 487. Section 21 of that Act, dealing with deserters and draft evaders, was in terms punitive, providing that “in addition to the other lawful penalties of the crime of desertion,” persons guilty thereof “shall be deemed and taken to have voluntarily relinquished and forfeited their rights of citizenship and their rights to become citizens . . . and all persons who, being duly enrolled, shall depart the jurisdiction of the district in which he is enrolled, or go beyond the limits of the United States, with intent to avoid any draft into the military or naval service, duly ordered, shall be liable to the penalties of this section.”
The debates in Congress in 1865 confirm that the use of punitive language in § 21 was not accidental. The section as originally proposed inflicted loss of rights of citizenship only on deserters. Senator Morrill of Maine proposed amending the section to cover persons who leave the country to avoid the draft, stating, “I do not see why the same principle should not extend to those who leave the country to avoid the draft.” Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 2d Sess. 642 (1865). This “same principle” was punitive, because Senator Morrill was also worried that insofar as the section as originally proposed “provides for a penalty” to be imposed on persons who had theretofore deserted, there was question “whether it is not an ex post facto law, whether it is not fixing a penalty for an act already done.” Ibid. Senator Johnson of Maryland attempted to allay Senator Morrill’s concern by explaining that
“the penalties are not imposed upon those who have deserted, if nothing else occurs, but only on those who have deserted and who shall not return within sixty days. The crime for which the punishment is inflicted is made up of the fact of an antecedent desertion, and a failure to return within sixty days. It is clearly within the power of Congress.” Ibid.
This explanation satisfied the Senate sufficiently so that they accepted the section, with Senator Morrill’s amendment, although Senator Hendricks of Indiana-made one last speech in an effort to convince his colleagues of the bill’s ex post facto nature and, even apart from that, of the excessiveness of the punishment, particularly as applied to draft evaders:
“It seems to me to be very clear that this section proposes to punish desertions which have already taken place, with a penalty which the law does not already prescribe. In other words it is an ex post facto criminal law which I think we cannot pass. . . . One of the penalties known very well to the criminal laws of the country is the denial of the right of suffrage and the right to hold offices of trust or profit.
“It seems to me this objection to the section is very clear, but I desire to suggest further that this section punishes desertions that may hereafter take place in the same manner, and it is known to Senators that one desertion recently created is not reporting when notified of the draft. ... I submit to Senators that it is a horrible thing to deprive a man of his citizenship, of that which is his pride and honor, from the mere fact that he has been unable to report upon the day specified after being notified that he has been drafted. Certainly the punishment for desertion is severe enough. It extends now from the denial of pay up to death; that entire compass is given for the punishment of this offense. Why add this other? It cannot do any good.” Id., at 643.
In the House, the motion of New York’s Representative Townsend to strike the section as a “despotic measure” which would “have the effect to deprive fifty thousand, and I do not know but one hundred thousand, people of their rights and privileges,” was met by the argument of Representative Schenck of Ohio, the Chairman of the Military Committee, that “Here is a penalty that is lawful, wise, proper, and that should be added to the other lawful penalties that now exist against deserters.” Id., at 1155. After Representative Wilson of Iowa proposed an amendment, later accepted and placed in the enacted version of the bill, extending the draft-evasion portion to apply to persons leaving “the district in which they are enrolled” in addition to those leaving the country, Representative J. C. Allen of Illinois raised the ex post facto objection to the section as a whole. Id., at 1155-1156. Representative Schenck answered him much as Senator Johnson had replied in the Senate:
“The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. J. C. Allen] misapprehends this section from not having looked carefully, as I think, into its language. He thinks it retroactive. It is not so. It does not provide for punishing those who have deserted in their character of deserters acquired by having gone before the passage of the law, but of those only, who, being deserters, shall not return and report themselves for duty within sixty days. If the gentleman looks at the language of the section, he will find that we have carefully avoided making it retroactive. We give those who have deserted their country and their flag sixty days for repentance and return.
“Mr. J. C. ALLEN. Will not the infliction of this penalty on those who have failed to return to the Army be an additional penalty that did not exist at the time they deserted?
“Mr. SCHENCK. Yes, sir.
“Mr. J. C. ALLEN. Does not that make the law retroactive?
“Mr. SCHENCK. They are deserters now. We take them up in their present status and character as deserters, and punish them for continuing in that character. The gentleman refers to lawyers here. I believe he is a good lawyer himself. Does he not know that if a man steals a horse and runs away with it to the next county it is a continual act of larceny until he delivers up the horse?” Id., at 1156.
The significance of these debates is, as these excerpts plainly show, that while there was a difference in both Houses as to whether the statute would be an ex post facto law, there was agreement among all the speakers on both sides of that issue, as well as on both sides of the merits of the bill generally, that deprivation of rights of citizenship for leaving the country to evade the draft was a “penalty” and “punishment” for a “crime” and an “offense” and a violation of a “criminal law.”
A number of state court judicial decisions rendered shortly after the Civil War lend impressive support to the conclusion that the predecessor of §§ 401 (j) and 349 (a) (10), §21 of the 1865 statute, was a criminal statute imposing an additional punishment for desertion and draft evasion. The first and most important of these was Huber v. Reily, 53 Pa. 112 (1866), in which, as in most of the cases which followed, the plaintiff had brought an action against the election judge of his home township, alleging that the defendant had refused to receive his ballot on the ground that plaintiff was a deserter and thereby disenfranchised under § 21, and that such refusal was wrongful because § 21 was unconstitutional. The asserted grounds of invalidity were that § 21 was an ex post jacto law, that it was an attempt by Congress to regulate suffrage in the States and therefore outside Congress’ sphere of power, and that it proposed to inflict pains and penalties without a trial and conviction, and was therefore prohibited by the Bill of Rights. In an opinion by Justice Strong, later a member of this Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court first characterized the statute in a way which compelled discussion of the asserted grounds of unconstitutionality:
“The Act of Congress is highly penal. It imposes forfeiture of citizenship and deprivation of the rights of citizenship as penalties for the commission of a crime. Its avowed purpose is to add to the penalties which the law had previously affixed to the offence of desertion from the military or naval service of the United States, and it denominates the additional sanctions provided as penalties.” 53 Pa., at 114-115.
It then answered the ex post facto argument as it had been answered on the floor of Congress, that the offense could as well be in the continued refusal to render service as in the original desertion. The second contention was met with the statement that “The enactment operates upon an individual offender, punishes him for violation of the Federal law by deprivation of his citizenship of the United States, but it leaves each state to determine for itself whether such an individual may be a voter. It does no more than increase the penalties of the law upon the commission of crime.” Id., at 116. “The third objection,” the court continued, “would be a very grave one if the act does in reality impose pains and penalties before and without a conviction by due process of law.” Id., at 116-117. The court then summarized the protections guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and concluded that it was not consistent with these rights to empower a “judge of elections or a board of election officers constituted under state laws ... to adjudge the guilt or innocence of an alleged violator of the laws of the United States.” Id., at 117. However, the court decided that since the penalty contemplated by § 21 “is added to what the law had previously enacted to be the penalty of desertion, as imprisonment is sometimes added to punishment by fine,” it must have been intended “that it should be incurred in the same way, and imposed by the same tribunal that was authorized to impose the other penalties for the offence.” Id., at 119. “[T]he forfeiture which it prescribes, like all other penalties for desertion, must be adjudged to the convicted person, after trial by a court-martial, and sentence approved. For the conviction and sentence of such a court there can be no substitute.” Id., at 120. (Emphasis in original.) Accordingly, since the plaintiff had not been so convicted, the court held that he was not disenfranchised.
Subsequent state court decisions in the post-Civil War period followed Huber v. Reily, both in result and reasoning. State v. Symonds, 57 Me. 148 (1869); Severance v. Healey, 50 N. H. 448 (1870); Gotcheus v. Matheson, 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 152 (1870); McCafferty v. Guyer, 59 Pa. 109 (1868).
Ultimately and significantly, in Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487, a case dealing with the question whether a city police officer had the power to arrest a military deserter, this Court recognized both the nature of the sanction imposed by § 21 and the attendant necessity of procedural safeguards, approvingly citing the above decisions:
“The provisions of §§ 1996 and 1998, which re-enact the act of March 3, 1865, ch. 79, § 21, 13 Stat. 490, and subject every person deserting the military service of the United States to additional penalties, namely, forfeiture of all rights of citizenship, and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit, can only take effect upon conviction by a court martial, as was clearly shown by Mr. Justice Strong, when a judge of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Huber v. Reily, 53 Penn. St. 112, and has been uniformly held by the civil courts as well as by the military authorities. State v. Symonds, 57 Maine, 148; Severance v. Healey, 50 N. H. 448; Goetcheus v. Matthewson, 61 N. Y. 420; Winthrop’s Digest of Judge Advocate General’s Opinions, 225.” 115 U. S., at 501-502.
Section 21 remained on the books unchanged, except for being distributed in the Revised Statutes as §§ 1996 and 1998, until 1912, when Congress re-enacted it with an amendment making it inapplicable to peacetime violations and giving the President power to mitigate or remit punishment previously imposed on peacetime violators, Act of August 22, 1912, 37 Stat. 356. The legislative history of that amendment is also instructive for our present inquiry. The discussion in both Houses had reference only to the penalties as operative on deserters, no doubt because there was no peacetime draft to evade, but since the 1865 statute dealt without distinction with both desertion and leaving the jurisdiction to evade, there is no reason to suppose the discussion quoted below to be any less applicable to the latter type of misconduct. The House Committee Report, H. R. Rep. No. 335, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. (1912), which was quoted in its entirety in the Senate Committee Report, S. Rep. No. 910, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. 3-6 (1912), stated that “In addition to the service penalty imposed by the court-martial, the law, as it now stands, imposes the further and most drastic punishment of loss of rights of citizenship .... There are in the United States to-day thousands of men who are literally men without a country and their numbers will be constantly added to until the drastic civil-war measure which adds this heavy penalty to an already severe punishment imposed by military law, is repealed.” H. R. Rep. No. 335, supra, at 2. In reporting the bill out of the Committee on Naval Affairs, Representative Roberts of Massachusetts, its author, stated that “the bill now under consideration is intended to remove one of the harshest penalties that can be imposed upon a man for an offense, to wit, the loss of rights of citizenship. . . . [S]uch a drastic penalty was entirely too severe to be imposed upon an American citizen in time of peace.” He detailed the penalties meted out by court-martial for desertion, and then referred to the “additional penalty of loss of citizenship,” which, he concluded, is “a barbarous punishment.” 48 Cong. Rec. 2903 (1912). Senator Bristow of Kansas, a member of his chamber’s Committee on Military Affairs, also referred in discussing the bill to the forfeiture of rights of citizenship as a “penalty,” and said that there is no reason why a peacetime offender should be “punished so severely.” 48 Cong. Rec. 9542 (1912).
A somewhat similar amendment had been passed by both Houses of Congress in 1908 but vetoed by the President. The House Committee Report on that occasion, H. R. Rep. No. 1340, 60th Cong., 1st Sess. (1908), consisted mainly of a letter from the Secretary of the Navy to the Congress, and of his annual report. In both documents he referred to loss of citizenship as a “punishment,” and as one of the “penalties” for desertion. Representative Roberts spoke in 1908, as he was to do once more in 1912, of the “enormity of the punishment” and the “horrible punishment,” and said, “Conviction itself under the existing law forfeits citizenship. That is the monstrosity of the law.” 43 Cong. Rec. Ill (1908). The entire discussion, id., at 110-114, was based on the premise that loss of citizenship is a punishment for desertion, the point at issue, as in 1912, being whether it was too severe a punishment for peacetime imposition. At one point Representative Roberts said, “Loss of citizenship is a punishment,” to which Representative Hull of Iowa replied, “Certainly.” Id., at 114.
Section 504 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1172, repealed the portion of the 1865 statute which dealt with flight from the jurisdiction to avoid the draft. However, in connection with the provision governing loss of citizenship for desertion, which was enacted as § 401 (g) and declared unconstitutional in Trop v. Dulles, supra, the President’s committee of advisers reported that the provisions of the 1865 Act had been “distinctly penal in character,” and concluded that “They must, therefore, be construed strictly, and the penalties take effect only upon conviction by a court martial.” Codification of the Nationality Laws of the United States, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 68 (Comm. Print 1939). Section 401 (g) was therefore worded so that loss of nationality could only occur upon conviction for desertion by court-martial. When, however, § 401 (j) was enacted in 1944, no such procedural safeguards were built in. See Trop v. Dulles, supra, at 93-94. Thus, whereas for Justice Brennan concurring in Trop the conclusion that expatriation under § 401 (g) was punishment was “but the beginning of critical inquiry,” 356 U. S., at 110, a similar conclusion with reference to § § 401 (j) and 349 (a) (10) is sufficient to sustain the holding that they are unconstitutional.
2. The Present Statutes.
The immediate legislative history of § 401 (j) confirms the conclusion, based upon study of the earlier legislative and judicial history, that it is punitive in nature. The language of the section was, to begin with, quite obviously patterned on that of its predecessor, an understandable fact since the draft of the bill was submitted to the Congress by Attorney General Biddle along with a letter to Chairman Russell of the Senate Immigration Committee, in which the Attorney General referred for precedent to the 1912 reenactment of the 1865 statute. This letter, which was the impetus for the enactment of the bill, was quoted in full text in support of it in both the House and Senate Committee Reports, H. R. Rep. No. 1229, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. 2-3 (1944); S. Rep. No. 1075, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1944), and is set out in the margin. The Senate Report stated that it “fully explains the purpose of the bill.” S. Rep. No. 1075, supra, at 1. The letter was couched entirely in terms of an argument that citizens who had left the country in order to escape military service should be dealt with, and that loss of citizenship was a proper way to deal with them. There was no reference to the societal good that would be wrought by the legislation, nor to any improvement in soldier morale or in the conduct of war generally that would be gained by the passage of the statute. The House Committee Report and the sponsors of the bill endorsed it on the same basis. The report referred for support to the fact that the FBI files showed “over 800 draft delinquents” in the El Paso area alone who had crossed to Mexico to evade the draft. H. R. Rep. No. 1229, supra, at 2. The obvious inference to be drawn from the report, the example it contained, and the lack of mention of any broader purpose is that Congress was concerned solely with inflicting effective retribution upon this class of draft evaders and, no doubt, on others similarly situated. Thus, on the floor of the House, Representative Dickstein of New York, the Chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, explained the bill solely as a means of dealing with “draft dodgers who left this country knowing that there was a possibility that they might be drafted in this war and that they might have to serve in the armed forces . . . .” He implied that the bill was necessary to frustrate their “idea of evading military service and of returning after the war is over, and taking their old places in our society.” 90 Cong. Rec. 3261 (1944). Senator Russell, who was manager of the bill as well as Chairman of the Senate Immigration Committee, explained it in similar terms:
“Certainly those who, having enjoyed the advantages of living in the United States, were unwilling to serve their country or subject themselves to the Selective Service Act,- should be penalized in some measure. . . . Any American citizen who is convicted of violating the Selective Service Act loses his citizenship. This bill would merely impose a similar penalty on those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of our courts, the penalty being the same as would result in the case of those who are subject to the jurisdiction of our courts.” 90 Cong. Rec. 7629 (1944).
The Senate and House debates, together with Attorney General Biddle’s letter, brought to light no alternative purpose to differentiate the new statute from its predecessor. Indeed, as indicated, the Attorney General’s letter specifically relied on the predecessor statute as precedent for this enactment, and both the letter and the debates, consistent with the character of the predecessor statute, referred to reasons for the enactment of the bill which were fundamentally retributive in nature. When all of these considerations are weighed, as they must be, in the context of the incontestibly punitive nature of the predecessor statute, the conclusion that § 401 (j) was itself dominantly punitive becomes inescapable. The legislative history of § 349 (a) (10) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which re-enacted § 401 (j), adds nothing to disturb that result. Our conclusion from the legislative and judicial history is, therefore, that Congress in these sections decreed an additional punishment for the crime of draft avoidance in the special category of cases wherein the evader leaves the country. It cannot do this without providing the safeguards which must attend a criminal prosecution.
V. Conclusion.
It is argued that our holding today will have the unfortunate result of immunizing the draft evader who has left the United States from having to suffer any sanction against his conduct, since he must return to this country before he can be apprehended and tried for his crime. The compelling answer to this is that the Bill of Rights which we guard so jealously and the procedures it guarantees are not to be abrogated merely because a guilty man may escape prosecution or for any other expedient reason. Moreover, the truth is that even without being expatriated, the evader living abroad is not in a position to assert the vast majority of his component rights as an American citizen. If he wishes to assert those rights in any real sense he must return to this country, and by doing that he will subject himself to prosecution. In fact, while he is outside the country evading prosecution, the United States may, by proper refusal to exercise its largely discretionary power to afford him diplomatic protection, decline to invoke its sovereign power on his behalf. Since the substantial benefits of American citizenship only come into play upon return to face prosecution, the draft evader who wishes to exercise his citizenship rights will inevitably come home and pay his debt, which within constitutional limits Congress has the power to define. This is what Mendoza-Martinez did, what Cort says he is willing to do, and what others have done. Thus our holding today does not frustrate the effective handling of the problem of draft evaders who leave the United States.
We conclude, for the reasons stated, that §§ 401 (j) and 349 (a) (10) are punitive and as such cannot constitutionally stand, lacking as they do the procedural safeguards which the Constitution commands. We recognize that draft evasion, particularly in time of war, is a heinous offense, and should and can be properly punished. Dating back to Magna Carta, however, it has been an abiding principle governing the lives of civilized men that “no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled . . . without the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land . . . .” What we hold is only that, in keeping with this cherished tradition, punishment cannot be imposed “without due process of law.” Any lesser holding would ignore the constitutional mandate upon which our essential liberties depend. Therefore the judgments of the District Courts in these cases are
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Black, while joining the opinion of the Court, adhere to the views éx-pressed in the dissent of Mr. Justice Douglas, in which Mr. Justice Black joined, in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U. S. 44, 79, that Congress has no power to deprive a person of the citizenship granted the native-born by § 1, cl. 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In question in No. 2, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, is § 401 (j) of the Nationality Act of 1940, added in 1944, 58 Stat. 746, which reads in full as follows:
“A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by . . .
“(j) Departing from or remaining outside of the jurisdiction of the United States in time of war or during a period declared by the President to be a period of national emergency for the purpose of evading or avoiding training and service in the land or naval forces of the United States.” Its successor and counterpart, § 349 (a) (10) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 267-268, 8 U. S. C. § 1481 (a) (10), is challenged in-No. 3, Rusk v. Cort, and reads as follows:
“From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by— . . .
“(10) departing from or remaining outside of the jurisdiction of the United States in time of war or during a period declared by the President to be a period of national emergency for the purpose of evading or avoiding training and service in the military, air, or naval forces of the United States. For the purposes of this paragraph failure to comply with any provision of any compulsory service laws of the United States shall raise the presumption that the departure from or absence from the United States was for the purpose of evading or avoiding training and service in the military, air, or naval forces of the United States.”
54 Stat. 894, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 311.
The memorandum opinion in which the quoted statement appears is unreported, but the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment of the court are reported at 192 F. Supp. 1.
64 Stat. 826, 50 U. S. C. App. § 454 et seq.
62 Stat. 622, 50 U. S. C. App. § 462 (a). The short title of the Act has since 1951 been the Universal Military Training and Service Act. 65 Stat. 75, 50 U. S. C. App. §451 (a).
In more detail, 28 U. S. C. § 2281 requires a three-judge court to be convened in order to grant “An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes . . . upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute . . . .”
The indictment was in three counts, but Mendoza-Martinez was convicted only on Count I, which reads in full as follows:
“Defendant Frank Martinez Mendoza, a male person within the class made subject to selective service under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, registered as required by said act and the regulations promulgated thereunder and became a registrant of Local Board No. 137, said board being then and there duly created and acting, under the Selective Service System established by said act, in Kern County, California, in the Northern Division of the Southern District of California; and on or about November 15, 1942, in violation of the provisions -of said act and the regulations promulgated thereunder, the defendant did knowingly evade service in the land or naval forces of the United States of America in that he did knowingly depart from the United States and go to a foreign country, namely: Mexico, for the purpose of evading service in the land or naval forces of the United States and did there remain until on or about November 1, 1946.”
The judgment and commitment, similarly, stated that Mendoza-Martinez was convicted of:
“Having on or about November 15th 1942, knowingly departed from the United States to Mexico, for the purpose of evading service in the land or naval forces of the United States and having remained there until on or about November 1st 1946.”
Compare United States v. International Building Co., 345 U. S. 502, in which a prior judicial determination of a tax issue, based on the parties’ stipulation, was refused collateral-estoppel effect in a later action. See also Restatement, Judgments, § 68, comments g, h, i.
Since the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 applied both to citizens and resident aliens, there was no need to determine in which category Mendoza-Martinez fell “on or about November 15, 1942.” In the present proceeding it is, of course, not disputed that Mendoza-Martinez was an American citizen on that date.
U. S. Const., Amend. XIV, § 1: “All persons bom or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . . .” This constitutional statement is to be interpreted in light of pre-existing common-law principles governing citizenship. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.
There is, however, no disagreement that citizenship may be voluntarily relinquished or abandoned either expressly or by conduct. See, e. g., Perez v. Brownell, 356 U. S. 44, 48-49; id., at 66-67 (Warren, C. J., dissenting).
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 25-26. See also Home Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 426; Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 93.
Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U. S. 299, 311-312; Perez v. Brownell, supra, 356 U. S., at 57-58.
See also Garner, Uniformity of Law in Respect to Nationality, 19 Am. J. Int’l L. 547 (1925).
See Seckler-Hudson, Statelessness: With Special Reference to the United States (1934), 244-253; Preuss, International Law and Deprivation of Nationality, 23 Geo. L. J. 250 (1934); Holborn, The Legal Status of Political Refugees, 1920-1938, 32 Am. J. Int’l L. 680 (1938). See also Shaughnessy v. United, States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206.
The drastic consequences of statelessness have led to reaffirmation in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15, of the right of every individual to retain a nationality. U. N Doc. No. A/810, pp. 71, 74 (1948) (adopted by the U. N. General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1948), reprinted in UNESCO, Human Rights, A Symposium, App. III (1949). See also A Study on Statelessness. U. N. Doc. No. E/1112 (1949); Second Report on the Elimination or Reduction of Statelessness, U. N. Doc. No. A/CN. 4/75 (1953); Weis, The United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 1961, 11 Int’l & Comp. L. Q. 1073 (1962), and authorities cited therein.
The evils of statelessness were recognized in the Report of the President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (1953), 241, and the treatise writers have unanimously disapproved of statutes which denationalize individuals without regard to whether they have dual nationality. Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (1916), §§262, 334; Fenwick, International Law (3d ed. 1948), 263; 1 Oppenheim, supra, §§ 313 — 313a; Gettys, The Law of Citizenship in the United States (1934), 137-138, 160.
War powers: United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81, 88; Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283, 298-300. Foreign-affairs powers: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 125-130; Shachtman v. Dulles, 96 U. S. App. D. C. 287, 225 F. 2d 938 (1955).
See also Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U. S. 146, 156; United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., supra; Ex parte Endo, supra.
Compare Ex parte Mason, 105 U. S. 696; Kahn v. Anderson, 255 U. S. 1, 8-9; Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 29, 38-46.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U. S. Const., Amend. V.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U. S. Const., Amend. VI.
Thus the fact that Mendoza-Martinez was, as it happened, convicted of draft evasion before deportation proceedings were brought against him is of no relevance. Even if the incidence of conviction for draft evasion were potentially relevant to the validity of §§401 (j) and 349 (a) (10), the fact is that the “crime” created by these sections includes an element not necessary to conviction for violation of § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940— “ [d] eparti'ng from or remaining outside” the country “for the purpose of evading or avoiding [military] training and service . . . .” See Comment, Power of Congress to Effect Involuntary Expatriation, 56 Mich. L. Rev. 1142, 1166 n. 102 (1958). Mendoza-Martinez was thus never tried for any crime the elements of which are identical with or totally inclusory of those of §401 (j), and hence was not even arguably accorded the procedural protections we here hold essential.
Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 377; United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303, 316; Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 617.
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 320-321; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 426-429; Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348, 350-352; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 237-238. Reference to history here is peculiarly appropriate. Though not determinative, it supports our holding to note that forfeiture of citizenship and the related devices of banishment and exile have throughout history been used as punishment. In ancient Rome, “There were many ways in which a man might lose his freedom, and with his freedom he necessarily lost his citizenship also. Thus he might be sold into slavery as an insolvent debtor, or condemned to the mines for his crimes as servus poenae.” Salmond, Citizenship and Allegiance, 17 L. Q. Rev. 270, 276 (1901). Banishment was a weapon in the .English legal arsenal for centuries, 4 Bl. Comm. *377, but it was always “adjudged a harsh punishment even by men who were accustomed to brutality in the administration of criminal justice.” Maxey, Loss of Nationality: Individual Choice or Government Fiat? 26 Albany L. Rev. 151, 164 (1962).
Helwig v. United States, 188 U. S. 605, 610-612; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20, 37-38.
United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 295; Trop v. Dulles, supra, 356 U. S., at 96 (opinion of The Chief Justice) ; id., at 111-112 (Brennan, J., concurring).
Lipke v. Lederer. 259 U. S. 557, 562; United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572-573; United States v. Constantine, supra, 296 U. S., at 295.
Cummings v. Missouri, supra, 4 Wall., at 319; Child Labor Tax Case, supra, 259 U. S., at 43; Lipke v. Lederer, supra, 259 U. S., at 561-562; United States v. La Franca, supra, 282 U. S., at 572; Trop v. Dulles, supra, 356 U. S., at 96-97; Flemming v. Nestor, supra, 363 U. S., at 615, 617.
Cummings v. Missouri, supra, 4 Wall., at 318;, Helwig v. United States, supra, 188 U. S., at 613; United States v. Constantine, supra, 296 U. S., at 295; Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 148, 154. But cf. Child Labor Tax Case, supra, 259 U. S., at 41; Flemming v. Nestor, supra, at 614, 616 and n. 9.
Compare Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 320, 322; United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303, 308-312; Wormuth, Legislative Disqualifications as Bills of Attainder, 4 Vand. L. Rev. 603, 608 (1951); Note, Punishment: Its Meaning in Relation to Separation of Power and Substantive Constitutional Restrictions and Its Use in the Lovett, Trop, Perez, and Speiser Cases, 34 Ind. L. J. 231, 249-253 (1959); Comment, The Communist Control Act of 1954, 64 Yale L. J. 712, 723 (1955).
Mackenzie v. Hare, 239. U. S. 299, and Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U. S. 491, whatever the proposition for which they stand in connection with the power of Congress to impose loss of citizenship, compare Perez v. Brownell, supra, 356 U. S., at 51-52, 61-62 (opinion of the Court), with id., at 68-73 (dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice) and id., at 80 (dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas), are both plainly distinguishable, as is Perez. The statutes in question in each of those cases provided loss of citizenship for noncriminal behavior instead of as an additional sanction attaching to behavior already a crime, and congressional expression attending their passage lacked the overwhelming indications of punitive purpose which characterized the enactments here. Thus, basing decision as we do on the unmistakable penal intent underlying the statutes presently at issue, nothing in our holding is inconsistent with these other cases, and there is no occasion for us to pass upon any question of the power of Congress to act as it did in the statutes involved in those cases. See note 43, infra.
The acts of Mendoza-Martinez and Cort would have been covered by this statute as well as by §§ 401 (j) and 349 (a) (10).
See p. 176, infra.
The President’s veto message to the Senate, S. Doc. No. 708, 60th Cong., 2d Sess. (1909), indicates that his refusal to approve the measure was premised partly on the fact that it placed the discretion to remit loss of citizenship rights in the Secretary of the Navy and partly on the President’s feeling that it “would actually encourage hardened offenders to commit a heinous crime against the flag and the nation.” Id., at 2. The former was a fault of the particular form of the measure: The President was worried that power to pardon could not constitutionally be vested in anyone other than himself, and he was further disturbed that placing the power in the Secretary of the Navy would result in discrimination against army people. The President’s second reason, however, indicates that to him retention of the law as it stood would serve a purpose always sought to be furthered by the imposition of punishment for crime— deterrence. This is borne out by the statements of the President’s advisers in recommending that he veto it. The Secretary of War said, “Loss of citizenship is a substantial part of the punishment, and doubtless has a very considerable effect in deterring desertions.” Id., at 3. The Secretary of the Navy stated that “It is believed that the present law regarding the loss of citizenship as a penalty for deserters from the navy acts as a deterrent to many.” Ibid. The Attorney General indicated his agreement with the Secretary of the Navy. Id., at 5.
The advisers’ citation of Huber v. Reily, supra, and Kurtz v. Moffitt, supra, in support of the quoted statement suggests their awareness that an underlying conviction is constitutionally mandated.
The relevance of such history in analyzing the character of a present enactment is illustrated by the Court’s approach in Helwig v. United States, 188 U. S. 605, 613-619, wherein at considerable length it reviewed and relied upon the character of previous relevant legislation in determining whether the statute before it, which imposed an exaction upon importers who undervalued imported goods for duty purposes, was a penalty.
“]y[T dear Senator: I invite your attention to the desirability of enacting legislation which would provide (1) for the expatriation of citizens of the United States who in time of war or during a national emergency leave the United States or remain outside thereof for the purpose of evading service in the armed forces of the United States, and (2) for the exclusion from the United States of aliens who leave this country for the above mentioned purpose.
“Under existing law a national of the United States, whether by birth or by naturalization, becomes expatriated by operation of law if he (1) obtains naturalization in a foreign state; (2) takes an oath of allegiance to a foreign country; (3) serves in the armed forces of a foreign state if he thereby acquires the nationality of such foreign state; (4) accepts employment under a foreign state for which only nationals of such state are eligible; (5) votes in a political election in a foreign state or participates in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory; (6) makes a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; (7) deserts from the armed forces of the United States in time of war and is convicted thereof by a court martial; or (8) is convicted of treason (U. S. C., title 8, sec. 801). Machinery is provided whereby a person who is denied any right or privilege of citizenship on the ground that he has become expatriated may secure a judicial determination of his status; and if he is outside of the United States he is entitled to a certificate of identity which permits him to enter and remain in the United States until his status has been determined by the courts (Nationality Act of 1940, sec. 503; U. S. C., title 8, sec. 903).
“The files of this Department disclose that at the present time there are many citizens of the United States who have left this country for the purpose of escaping service in the armed forces. While such persons are liable to prosecution for violation of the Selective Service and Training Act of 1940, if and when they return to this country, it would seem proper that in addition they should lose their United States citizenship. Persons who are unwilling to perform their duty to their country and abandon it during its time of need are much less worthy of citizenship than are persons who become expatriated on any of the existing grounds.
“Accordingly, I recommend the enactment of legislation which would provide (1) for the expatriation of citizens of the United States who in time of war or during a national emergency leave the United States or remain outside thereof for the purpose of evading service in the armed forces of the United States, and (2) for the exclusion from the United States of aliens who leave this country for that purpose. Any person who may be deemed to have become expatriated by operation of the foregoing provision, would be entitled to have his status determined by the courts pursuant to the above-mentioned section of the Nationality Act of 1940.
“Adequate precedent exists for the suggested legislation in that during the First World War a statute was in force which provided for the expatriation of any person who went beyond the limits of the United States with intent to avoid any draft into the military or naval service (37 Stat. 356). This provision was repealed by section 504 of the Nationality Code of 1940 (54 Stat. 1172; U. S. C., title 8, sec. 904).
“A draft of a proposed bill to effectuate the foregoing purpose is enclosed herewith.
“I have been informed by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that the proposed legislation is in accord with the program of the President.
“Sincerely yours,
“Attorney General.”
The Senator’s statement that “Any American citizen who is convicted of violating the Selective Service Act loses his citizenship” was apparently a reference to §401 (g), and should accordingly be read in that limited fashion.
Section 349 (a) (10) did amend §401 (j) by adding a presumption that failure to comply with any provision of the compulsory service laws of the United States means that the departure from of absence from the United States is for the purpose of avoiding military service. See note 1, supra. Our holding today obviates any necessity for passing upon this provision.
Lipke v. Lederer, 259 U. S. 557; United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568. See Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417; Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228. Compare Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183; Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U. S. 551, 554, 556; Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513.
Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (1916), §§ 143, 341; see authorities cited in Klubock, Expatriation — Its Origin and Meaning, 38 Notre Dame Law. 1, 11, n. 68 (1962). See also Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421.
The astonishing story of Grover Cleveland Bergdoll is one example. See, e. g., N. Y. Times, Sept. 23, 1927, p. 8, col. 3; May 3, 1935, p. 3, col. 4; Aug. 16,1935, p. 9, col. 3; Apr. 11,1939, p. 6, col. 4; May 26, 193#, p. 1, col. 7; May 30, 1939, p. 36, col. 4; Oct. 6, 1939, p. 1, col. 3; Dee. 5, 1939, p. 3, col. 6; 39 Op. Atty. Gen. 303 (1939). Another example is the recent voluntary return of Edward M. Gilbert to face trial on charges for which he could not be extradited. N. Y. Times, Oct 27, 1962, p. 1, col. 1; Oct. 30, 1962, p. 1, col. 2.
Moreover, the problem is, relatively, extremely small. Over 16,000,000 men served in our armed forces during World War II, and nearly 6,000,000 more served during the Korean crisis. The World Almanac (1963), 735. Yet between the time of the enactment of §401 (j) and June 30, 1961, only about 1,750 persons were denationalized for leaving the country to avoid the draft. Compare figures cited in Klubock, supra, at 49, taken from Immigration and Naturalization Service Annual Reports, with figures cited in Comment, The Expatriation Act of 1954, 64 Yale L. J. 1164, 1165, n. 9 (1955), derived partially from correspondence with the General Counsel to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The conclusion that the denationalization sanction, as used in §§401 (j) and 349 (a) (10), is a punishment, obviates any need to determine whether these sections are otherwise within the powers of Congress. That question would have had to be faced only if the foregoing inquiry had disclosed reasons other than punitive for the infliction of loss of nationality in the present context, necessitating decision whether the; sections in question were within the powers of Congress as a regulatory scheme, or if the punitive forfeiture of citizenship had been surrounded with appopriate safeguards, obliging decision whether the sections were within the powers of Congress to apply as a criminal sanction.
14 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 630. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. If the case arose under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, note the source as "United States Supreme Court". If the case arose in a state court, note the source as "State Supreme Court", "State Appellate Court", or "State Trial Court". Do not code the name of the state. | What is the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims"
] | [
41
] | sc |
UNITED STATES v. HUGHES PROPERTIES, INC.
No. 85-554.
Argued April 23, 1986
Decided June 3, 1986
Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brennan, White, Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Burger, C. J., joined, post, p. 607.
Albert G. Lauber, Jr., argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Fried, Acting Assistant Attorney General Olsen, Richard Farber, and William A. Whitledge.
O. Clayton Lilienstern argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Denton N. Thomas.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Atlantic City Casino Association by Herbert J. Miller, Jr., and David O. Stewart; for New York Life Insurance Co. by Matthew J. Zinn and J. Walker Johnson; and for Transamerica Corp. by W. Reece Bader and Cameron W. Wolfe, Jr.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the deductibility for federal income tax purposes, by a casino operator utilizing the accrual method of accounting, of amounts guaranteed for payment on “progressive” slot machines but not yet won by playing patrons.
I
A
There is no dispute as to the relevant facts; many of them are stipulated. Respondent Hughes Properties, Inc., is a Nevada corporation. It owns Harolds Club, a gambling casino, in Reno, Nev. It keeps its books and files its federal income tax returns under the accrual method of accounting. During the tax years in question (the fiscal years that ended June 30 in 1973 to 1977, inclusive), respondent owned and operated slot machines at its casino. Among these were a number of what are called “progressive” machines. A progressive machine, like a regular one, pays fixed amounts when certain symbol combinations appear on its reels. But a progressive machine has an additional “progressive” jackpot, which is won only when a different specified combination appears. The casino sets this jackpot initially at a minimal amount. The figure increases, according to a ratio determined by the casino, as money is gambled on the machine. The amount of the jackpot at any given time is registered on a “payoff indicator” on the face of the machine. That amount continues to increase as patrons play the machine until the jackpot is won or until a maximum, also determined by the casino, is reached.
The odds of winning a progressive jackpot obviously are a function of the number of reels on the machine, the number of positions on each reel, and the number of winning symbols. The odds are determined by the casino, provided only that there exists a possibility that the winning combination of symbols can appear.
The Nevada Gaming Commission closely regulates the casino industry in the State, including the operation of progressive slot machines. In September 1972, the Commission promulgated §5.110 of the Nevada Gaming Regulations. See App. 55. This section requires a gaming establishment to record at least once a day the jackpot amount registered on each progressive machine. §5.110.5. Furthermore,
“[n]o payoff indicator shall be turned back to a lesser amount, unless the amount by which the indicator has been turned back is actually paid to a winning player, or unless the change in the indicator reading is necessitated through a machine malfunction, in which case an explanation must be entered on the daily report as required in subsection 5.” §5.110.2; App. 55.
The regulation is strictly enforced. Nevada, by statute, authorizes the Commission to impose severe administrative sanctions, including license revocation, upon any casino that wrongfully refuses to pay a winning customer a guaranteed jackpot. See Nev. Rev. Stat. §463.310 (1985).
It is respondent’s practice to remove the money deposited by customers in its progressive machines at least twice every week and also on the last day of each month. The Commission does not regulate respondent’s use of the funds thus collected, but, since 1977, it has required that a casino maintain a cash reserve sufficient to provide payment of the guaranteed amounts on all its progressive machines available to the public. Nev. Gaming Regs. §5.110(3); App. 56.
B
At the conclusion of each fiscal year, that is, at midnight on June 30, respondent entered the total of the progressive jackpot amounts shown on the payoff indicators as an accrued liability on its books. From that total, it subtracted the corresponding figure for the preceding year to produce the current tax year’s increase in accrued liability. On its federal income tax return for each of its fiscal years 1973, 1974,1975, and 1977, respondent asserted this net figure as a deduction under § 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, 26 U. S. C. § 162(a), as an ordinary and necessary expense “paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business.” There is no dispute as to the amounts so determined or that a progressive jackpot qualifies for deduction as a proper expense of running a gambling business. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 7.
On audit, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the deduction. He did so on the ground that, under Treas. Reg. § 1.461-l(a)(2), 26 CFR § 1.461-l(a)(2) (1985), an expense may not be deducted until “all the events have occurred which determine the fact of the liability and the amount thereof can be determined with reasonable accuracy.” In his view, respondent’s obligation to pay a particular progressive jackpot matures only upon a winning patron’s pull of the handle in the future. According to the Commissioner, until that event occurs, respondent’s liability to pay the jackpot is contingent and therefore gives rise to no deductible expense. Indeed, until then, there is no one who can make a claim for payment. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 11. Accordingly, the Commissioner determined deficiencies in respondent’s income taxes for the years in question in the total amount of $433,441.88, attributable solely to the denial of these progressive jackpot deductions. Respondent paid the asserted deficiencies and filed timely claims for refund. When the claims were denied, respondent brought this suit for refunds in the Claims Court.
C
Each side moved for summary judgment. App. 15, 52. Respondent contended that the year-end amounts shown on the payoff indicators of the progressive slot machines were deductible, claiming that there was a reasonable expectation that payment would be made at some future date, that the casino’s liability was fixed and irrevocable under Nevada law, that the accrual of those amounts conformed with generally accepted accounting principles, and that deductibility effected a timely and realistic matching of revenue and expenses.
The Claims Court denied the Government’s motion for summary judgment but granted respondent’s motion. 5 Cl. Ct. 641 (1984). It concluded that, under the Nevada Commission’s rule, respondent’s liability to pay the amounts on the progressive jackpot indicators became “unconditionally fixed,” id., at 645, at “midnight of the last day of the fiscal year,” id., at 647. The final event was “the last play (successful or not) of the machine before the close of the fiscal year, that is, the last change in the jackpot amount before the amount is recorded for accounting purposes.” Id., at 645. A contrary result would mismatch respondent’s income and expenses. The court acknowledged that, if respondent were to go out of business, it would not owe the jackpot amount to any particular person. Id., at 646. Nevertheless, the jackpot indicator amount “would still continue to be an incurred liability fixed by state law, for which [respondent] would continue to be responsible” (emphasis in original). Id., at 645.
The Claims Court further acknowledged that its ruling was in conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Nightingale v. United States, 684 F. 2d 611 (1982), having to do with another Nevada casino, but it dedined to follow that precedent and specifically disavowed its reasoning. 5 Cl. Ct., at 644-647.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment “on the basis of the United States Claims Court opinion.” 760 F. 2d 1292, 1293 (1985). It ruled that, under the accrual method of accounting, an expense is deductible in the tax year in which all the events have occurred that determine the fact of liability and the amount thereof can be determined with reasonable accuracy, and that liability exists “if there is an obligation to perform an act and the cost of performance can be measured in money.” Ibid. The liability here was not contingent upon the time of payment or the identity of the jackpot winner. Rather, it was fixed by the Commission’s regulation. The “contrary conclusion” of the Ninth Circuit in Nightingale was noted. 760 F. 2d, at 1293.
Because of the clear conflict between the two Circuits, we granted certiorari. 474 U. S. 1004 (1985).
II
Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code allows a deduction for “all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business.” Section 446(a) provides that taxable income “shall be computed under the method of accounting on the basis of which the taxpayer regularly computes his income in keeping his books.” Under the “cash receipts and disbursements method,” specifically recognized by § 446(c)(1), a taxpayer is entitled to deduct business expenses only in the year in which they are paid. Treas. Reg. §§ 1.446-l(c)(l)(i) and 1.461-l(a)(l), 26 CFR §§ 1.446-l(c)(l)(i), 1.461-l(a)(l) (1985). The Code also permits a taxpayer to compute taxable income by the employment of “an accrual method.” § 446(c)(2). An accrual-method taxpayer is entitled to deduct an expense in the year in which it is “incurred,” § 162(a), regardless of when it is actually paid.
For a number of years, the standard for determining when an expense is to be regarded as “incurred” for federal income tax purposes has been the “all events” test prescribed by the Regulations. See Treas. Reg. § 1.446 — l(c)(l)(ii) (accruals in general); § 1.451-l(a) (accrual of income); and § 1.461-l(a)(2) (accrual of deductions). This test appears to have had its origin in a single phrase that appears in this Court’s opinion in United States v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 422, 441 (1926) (“[I]t is also true that in advance of the assessment of a tax, all the events may occur which fix the amount of the tax and determine the liability of the taxpayer to pay it”). Since then, the Court has described the “all events” test “established” in Anderson as “the ‘touchstone’ for determining the year in which an item of deduction accrues,” and as “a fundamental principle of tax accounting.” United States v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 366 U. S. 380, 385 (1961) (citing cases).
Under the Regulations, the “all events” test has two elements, each of which must be satisfied before accrual of an expense is proper. First, all the events must have occurred which establish the fact of the liability. Second, the amount must be capable of being determined “with reasonable accuracy.” Treas. Reg. § 1.446-l(c)(l)(ii). This case concerns only the first element, since the parties agree that the second is fully satisfied.
Ill
The Court’s cases have emphasized that “a liability does not accrue as long as it remains contingent.” Brown v. Helvering, 291 U. S. 193, 200 (1934); accord, Dixie Pine Products Co. v. Commissioner, 320 U. S. 516, 519 (1944). Thus, to satisfy the all-events test, a liability must be “final and definite in amount,” Security Flour Mills Co. v. Commissioner, 321 U. S. 281, 287 (1944), must be “fixed and absolute,” Brown v. Helvering, 291 U. S., at 201, and must be “unconditional,” Lucas v. North Texas Lumber Co., 281 U. S. 11, 13 (1930). And one may say that “the tax law requires that a deduction be deferred until ‘all the events’ have occurred that will make it fixed and certain.” Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U. S. 522, 543 (1979).
A
The Government argues that respondent’s liability for the progressive jackpots was not “fixed and certain,” and was not “unconditional” or “absolute,” by the end of the fiscal year, for there existed no person who could assert any claim to those funds. It takes the position, quoting Nightingale v. United States, 684 F. 2d, at 614, that the indispensable event “is the winning of the progressive jackpot by some fortunate gambler.” It says that, because respondent’s progressive jackpots had not been won at the close of the fiscal year, respondent had not yet incurred liability. Nevada law places no restriction on the odds set by the casino, as long as a possibility exists that the winning combination can appear. Thus, according to the Government, by setting very high odds respondent can defer indefinitely into the future the time when it actually will have to pay off the jackpot. The Government argues that if a casino were to close its doors and go out of business, it would not owe the jackpots to anyone. Similarly, if it were to sell its business, or cease its gaming operations, or go into bankruptcy, or if patrons were to stop playing its slot machines, it would have no obligation.
B
We agree with the Claims Court and with the Federal Circuit and disagree with the Government for the following reasons:
1. The effect of the Nevada Gaming Commission’s regulations was to fix respondent’s liability. Section 5.110.2 forbade reducing the indicated payoff without paying the jackpot, except to correct a malfunction or to prevent exceeding the limit imposed. App. 55. Respondent’s liability, that is, its obligation to pay the indicated amount, was not contingent. That an extremely remote and speculative possibility existed that the jackpot might never be won, did not change the fact that, as a matter of state law, respondent had a fixed liability for the jackpot which it could not escape. The effect of Nevada’s law was equivalent to the situation where state law requires the amounts of the jackpot indicators to be set aside in escrow pending the ascertainment of the identity of the winners. The Government concedes that, in the latter case, the liability has accrued, Tr. of Oral Arg. 20-21, even though the same possibility would still exist that the winning pull would never occur.
2. The Government misstates the need for identification of the winning player. That is, or should be, a matter of no relevance for the casino operator. The obligation is there, and whether it turns out that the winner is one patron or another makes no conceivable difference as to basic liability.
3. The Government’s heavy reliance on Brown v. Helvering, 291 U. S. 193 (1934), in our view, is misplaced. That case concerned an agent’s commissions on sales of insurance policies, and the agent’s obligation to return a proportionate part of the commission in case a policy was canceled. The agent sought to deduct from gross income an amount added during the year to his reserve for repayment of commissions. This Court agreed with the Commissioner’s disallowance of the claimed deduction because the actual event that would create the liability — the cancellation of a particular policy in a later year — “[did] not occur during the taxable year,” id,., at 200, but rather occurred only in the later year in which the policy was in fact canceled. Here, however, the event creating liability, as the Claims Court recognized, was the last play of the machine before the end of the fiscal year, since that play fixed the jackpot amount irrevocably. 5 Cl. Ct., at 645. That event occurred during the taxable year.
4. The Government’s argument that the fact that respondent treats unpaid jackpots as liabilities for financial accounting purposes does not justify treating them as liabilities for tax purposes is unpersuasive. Proper financial accounting and acceptable tax accounting, to be sure, are not the same. Justice Brandéis announced this fact well over 50 years ago: “The prudent business man often sets up reserves to cover contingent liabilities. But they are not allowable as deductions.” Lucas v. American Code Co., 280 U. S. 445, 452 (1930). See also Brown v. Helvering, 291 U. S., at 201-202, and Lucas v. Kansas City Structural Steel Co., 281 U. S. 264, 269 (1930). The Court has long recognized “the vastly different objectives that financial and tax accounting have.” Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U. S., at 542. The goal of financial accounting is to provide useful and pertinent information to management, shareholders, and creditors. On the other hand, the major responsibility of the Internal Revenue Service is to protect the public fisc. Ibid. Therefore, although § 446(c)(2) permits a taxpayer to use an accrual method for tax purposes if he uses that method to keep his books, § 446(b) specifically provides that if the taxpayer’s method of accounting “does not clearly reflect income,” the Commissioner may impose a method that “does clearly reflect income.” Thus, the “Commissioner has broad powers in determining whether accounting methods used by a taxpayer clearly reflect income.” Commissioner v. Hansen, 360 U. S. 446, 467 (1959). See also Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U. S., at 532; American Automobile Assn. v. United States, 367 U. S. 687, 697-698 (1961). The Regulations carry this down specifically to “the accounting treatment of any item.” Treas. Reg. § 1.446-l(a)(l).
Granting all this — that the Commissioner has broad discretion, that financial accounting does not control for tax purposes, and that the mere desirability of matching expenses with income will not necessarily sustain a taxpayer’s deduction, see American Automobile Assn. v. United States, 367 U. S., at 690; Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U. S., at 541 — the Commissioner’s disallowance of respondent’s deductions was not justified in this case. As stated above, these jackpot liabilities were definitely fixed. A part of the machine’s intake was to be paid out, that amount was known, and only the exact time of payment and the identity of the winner remained for the future. But the accrual method itself makes irrelevant the timing factor that controls when a taxpayer uses the cash receipts and disbursements method.
5. The Government suggests that respondent’s ability to control the timing of payouts shows both the contingent nature of the claimed deductions and a potential for tax avoidance. It speaks of the time value of money, of respondent’s ability to earn additional income upon the jackpot amounts it retains until a winner comes along, of respondent’s “virtually unrestricted discretion in setting odds,” Brief for United States 31, and of its ability to transfer amounts from one machine to another with the accompanying capacity to defer indefinitely into the future the time at which it must make payment to its customers. All this, the Government says, unquestionably contains the “potential for tax avoidance.” See Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U. S., at 538. And the Government suggests that a casino operator could put extra machines on the floor on the last day of the tax year with whatever initial jackpots it specifies and with whatever odds it likes, and then, on the taxpayer’s theory, could take a current deduction for the full amount even though payment of the jackpots might not occur for many years, citing Nightingale, 684 F. 2d, at 615.
None of the components that make up this parade of horribles, of course, took place here. Nothing in this record even intimates that respondent used its progressive machines for tax-avoidance purposes. Its income from these machines was less than 1% of its gross revenue during the tax years in question. See App. 35-36. Respondent’s revenue from progressive slot machines depends on inducing gamblers to play the machines, and, if it sets unreasonably high odds, customers will refuse to play and will gamble elsewhere. Thus, respondent’s economic self-interest will keep it from setting odds likely to defer payoffs too far into the future. Nor, with Nevada’s strictly imposed controls, was any abuse of the kind hypothesized by the Government likely to happen. In any event, the Commissioner’s ability, under § 446(b) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 446(b), to correct any such abuse is the complete practical answer to the Government’s concern. If a casino manipulates its use of progressive slot machines to avoid taxes, the Commissioner has the power to find that its accounting does not accurately reflect its income and to require it to use a more appropriate accounting method. Finally, since the casino of course must pay taxes on the income it earns from the use of as-yet-unwon jackpots, the Government vastly overestimates the time value of respondent’s deductions.
6. There is always a possibility, of course, that a casino may go out of business, or surrender or lose its license, or go into bankruptcy, with the result that the amounts shown on the jackpot indicators would never be won by playing patrons. But this potential nonpayment of an incurred liability exists for every business that uses an accrual method, and it does not prevent accrual. See, e. g., Wien Consolidated Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner, 528 F. 2d 735 (CA9 1976). “The existence of an absolute liability is necessary; absolute certainty that it will be discharged by payment is not.” Helvering v. Russian Finance & Constr. Corp., 77 F. 2d 324, 327 (CA2 1935). And if any of the events hypothesized by the Government should occur, the deducted amounts would qualify as recaptured income subject to tax. Treas. Reg. § 1.461 — 1(a)(2).
7. Finally, the result in United States v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 422 (1926), a case to which the Government makes repeated reference, is itself instructive. The issue there was the propriety of the accrual of a federal munitions tax prior to its actual assessment. The assessment was required before the tax became due. The Government’s position, in contrast to its position in the present case, was that the tax liability accrued before, assessment. The Court held that the absence of the assessment did not prevent accrual of the tax. It recognized that the taxpayer’s “true income for the year . . . could not have been determined without deducting . . . the . . . expenses attributable to the production of that income during the year.” Id., at 440. One of the expenses that necessarily attended the production of munitions income was the commitment of a particular portion of the revenue generated to a “reserve for munitions taxes.” Ibid. Similarly, one of the expenses that necessarily attends the production of income from a progressive slot machine is the commitment of a particular portion of the revenue generated to an irrevocable jackpot. Respondent’s true income from its progressive slot machines is only that portion of the money gambled which it is entitled to keep.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
A 1976 study of the 24 four-reel progressive machines then in operation at respondent’s casino revealed that the average period between payoffs was approximately \'k months, although one machine had been in operation for 13 months and another for 35 months without a payoff as of September 1, 1976. The payoff frequency of the other 22 machines ranged from a high of 14.3 months to a low of 1.9 months.
No deduction was asserted for fiscal 1976 because the aggregate accrued liability at the end of fiscal 1976 was less than that at the end of fiscal 1975.
An affidavit of the president of respondent’s Harolds Club Division, submitted in the Claims Court in support of respondent’s motion for summary judgment, states that all the progressive machine jackpots unpaid as of June 30, 1977, “were subsequently won and paid to customers.” App. 62.
The fact that Congress once briefly adopted statutory provisions that specifically would have permitted a taxpayer to deduct anticipated expenses by a reserve mechanism is hardly significant. See §§ 462(a) and (d)(1)(B) of the 1954 Code as originally adopted, 68A Stat. 158-159, repealed retroactively by the Act of June 15, 1955, ch. 143, §§ 1 and 3, 69 Stat. 134, 135. But see Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, § 91(a), 98 Stat. 598.
Respondent also is unlikely to set extremely high initial jackpots on its machines, since that practice would increase the casino’s risk. The initial progressive jackpot amount is the casino’s money. If a patron gets the winning combination soon after the machine goes into service, the casino will not have time to recoup the initial jackpot from money gambled by the public. Thus, casinos will tend to set rather low initial jackpots, relying on a percentage of the funds gambled by previous players to contribute the bulk of the progressive jackpot. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded. | What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"modify",
"remand",
"unusual disposition"
] | [
1
] | sc |
MOLINARO v. NEW JERSEY
No. 663.
Decided January 19, 1970
Burrell Ives Humphreys for appellant.
Per Curiam.
This case comes to the Court on appeal from the New Jersey state courts, which have affirmed appellant Moli-naro’s conviction for abortion and conspiracy to commit abortion. We are informed by both appellant’s counsel and counsel for the State that Molinaro, who was free on bail, has failed to surrender himself to state authorities. His bail has been revoked, and the State considers him a fugitive from justice. Under these circumstances we decline to adjudicate his case.
The Court has faced such a situation before, in Smith v. United States, 94 U. S. 97 (1876), and Bonahan v. Nebraska, 125 U. S. 692 (1887). In each of those cases, which were before the Court on writs of error, the Court ordered the case removed from the docket upon receiving information that the plaintiff in error had escaped from custody. In Smith, the case was dismissed at the beginning of the following Term. See 18 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 427, 430 (1950). In Bonahan, the case was stricken from the docket on the last day of the Term in which it arose. See also National Union v. Arnold, 348 U. S. 37, 43 (1954); Eisler v. United States, 338 U. S. 189 and 883 (1949); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U. S. 138 (1897). No persuasive reason exists why this Court should proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case after the convicted defendant who has sought review escapes from the restraints placed upon him pursuant to the conviction. While such an escape does not strip the case of its character as an adjudicable case or controversy, we believe it disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims. In the absence of specific provision to the contrary in the statute under which Molinaro appeals, 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2), we conclude, in light of the Smith and Bonahan decisions, that the Court has the authority to dismiss the appeal on this ground. The dismissal need not await the end of the Term or the expiration of a fixed period of time, but should take place at this time.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas concurs in the result. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the state associated with the respondent. If the respondent is a federal court or federal judge, note the "state" as the United States. The same holds for other federal employees or officials. | What state is associated with the respondent? | [
"Alabama",
"Alaska",
"American Samoa",
"Arizona",
"Arkansas",
"California",
"Colorado",
"Connecticut",
"Delaware",
"District of Columbia",
"Federated States of Micronesia",
"Florida",
"Georgia",
"Guam",
"Hawaii",
"Idaho",
"Illinois",
"Indiana",
"Iowa",
"Kansas",
"Kentucky",
"Louisiana",
"Maine",
"Marshall Islands",
"Maryland",
"Massachusetts",
"Michigan",
"Minnesota",
"Mississippi",
"Missouri",
"Montana",
"Nebraska",
"Nevada",
"New Hampshire",
"New Jersey",
"New Mexico",
"New York",
"North Carolina",
"North Dakota",
"Northern Mariana Islands",
"Ohio",
"Oklahoma",
"Oregon",
"Palau",
"Pennsylvania",
"Puerto Rico",
"Rhode Island",
"South Carolina",
"South Dakota",
"Tennessee",
"Texas",
"Utah",
"Vermont",
"Virgin Islands",
"Virginia",
"Washington",
"West Virginia",
"Wisconsin",
"Wyoming",
"United States",
"Interstate Compact",
"Philippines",
"Indian",
"Dakota"
] | [
34
] | sc |
CITY OF PHOENIX et al. v. KOLODZIEJSKI
No. 1066.
Argued March 31, 1970
Decided June 23, 1970
Rex E. Lee argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Robert J. Backstein and Alan K. Polley.
Fred H. Rosenfeld argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief was Ivan Robinette.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Jack P. F. Gre-million, Attorney General, Edward Donald Moseley, Harold B. Judell, and James Hugh Martin for the State of Louisiana; by Phillip H. Holm for the Parish School Board of Caddo Parish; by John F. Ward, Jr., Fred G. Benton, Jr., and Fred G. Benton, Sr., for the Louisiana School Boards Association; by Myles P. Tallmadge for Poudre School District R-l of Larimer County, Colorado; and by Richard H. Frank for Elizabeth M. Axtell et al.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U. S. 621 (1969), this Court held that a State could not restrict the vote in school district elections to owners and lessees of real property and parents of school children because the exclusion of otherwise qualified voters was not shown to be necessary to promote a compelling state interest. This ruling, by its terms applicable to elections of public officials, was extended to elections for the approval of revenue bonds to finance local improvements in Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701 (1969). Our decision in Cipriano did not, however, reach the question now presented for decision: Does the Federal Constitution permit a State to restrict to real property taxpayers the vote in elections to approve the issuance of general obligation bonds?
This question arises in the following factual setting: On June 10, 1969, the City of Phoenix, Arizona, held an election to authorize the issuance of $60,450,000 in general obligation bonds as well as certain revenue bonds. Under Arizona law, property taxes were to be levied to service this indebtedness, although the city was legally privileged to use other revenues for this purpose. The general obligation bonds were to be issued to finance various municipal improvements, with the largest amounts to go for the city sewer system, parks and playgrounds, police and public safety buildings, and libraries. Pursuant to Arizona constitutional and statutory provisions, only otherwise qualified voters who were also real property taxpayers were permitted to vote on these bond issues. All of the bond issues submitted to the voters were approved by a majority of those voting.
On June 16, 1969, six days after the election in Phoenix, this Court held in Cipriano v. City of Houma, supra, that restricting the franchise to property taxpayers in elections on revenue bonds violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That ruling was applied to the case before the Court in which under local law the authorization of the revenue bonds was not yet final when the challenge to the election was raised in the District Court. On August 1, 1969, ap-pellee Kolodziejski, a Phoenix resident who was otherwise qualified to vote but who owned no real property, filed her complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona challenging the constitutionality of the restriction on the franchise in Arizona bond elections and attacking the validity of the June 1969 election approving the Phoenix bond issues. A District Court of three judges was convened. In the District Court, appellants conceded that, under this Court’s decisions in Cipriano and Kramer, supra, the bond election was invalid with regard to the revenue bonds that had been approved. The District Court perceived no significant difference between revenue bonds and general obligation bonds and therefore held that the exclusion of nonproperty-owning voters from the election on the general obligation bonds was unconstitutional under Cipriano and Kramer. Because the authorization of the Phoenix general obligation bonds was not final on the date of the Cipriano decision, the court held the Cipriano rule applicable and declared the June 10, 1969, bond election invalid. The appellants were enjoined from taking further action to issue the bonds approved in that election. The City of Phoenix and the members of the City Council appealed from the judgment of the District Court with respect to the general obligation bonds. We noted probable jurisdiction, 397 U. S. 903 (1970). We affirm the judgment of the District Court but do not agree that the ruling in this case should be retroactive to the date of the Cipriano decision.
I
In Cipriano v. City of Houma, supra, the denial of the franchise to nonproperty owners in elections on revenue bonds was held to be a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the nonproperty owners since they, as well as property owners, are substantially affected by the issuance of revenue bonds to finance municipal utilities. It is now argued that the rationale of Cipriano does not render unconstitutional the exclusion of non-property owners from voting in elections on general obligation bonds.
The argument proceeds on two related fronts. First, it is said that the Arizona statutes require that property taxes be levied in an amount sufficient to service the general obligation bonds, the law thus expressly placing a special burden on property owners for the benefit of the entire community. Second, and more generally, whereas revenue bonds are secured by the revenues from the operation of particular facilities and these revenues may be earned from both property owners and non-property owners, general obligation bonds are secured by the general taxing power of the issuing municipality. Since most municipalities rely to a substantial extent on property tax revenues which will be used to make debt service payments if other revenue sources prove insufficient, general obligation bonds are in effect a lien on the real property subject to taxation by the issuing municipality. Whatever revenues are actually used to service the bonds, an unavoidable potential tax burden is imposed only on those who own realty since that property cannot be moved beyond the reach of the municipality's taxing power. Hence, according to appellants, the State is justified in recognizing the unique interests of real property owners by allowing only property taxpayers to participate in elections to approve the issuance of general obligation bonds.
Concededly, the case of elections to approve general obligation bonds was not decided in Cipriano v. City of Houma, supra. But we have concluded that the principles of that case, and of Kramer v. Union Free School District, supra, dictate a like result where a State excludes nonproperty taxpayers from voting in elections for the approval of general obligation bonds. The differences between the interests of property owners and the interests of nonproperty owners are not sufficiently substantial to justify excluding the latter from the franchise. This is so for several reasons.
First, it is unquestioned that all residents of Phoenix, property owners and nonproperty owners alike, have a substantial interest in the public facilities and the services available in the city and will be substantially affected by the ultimate outcome of the bond election at issue in this case. Presumptively, when all citizens are affected in important ways by a governmental decision subject to a referendum, the Constitution does not permit weighted voting or the exclusion of otherwise qualified citizens from the franchise. Arizona nevertheless excludes nonproperty owners from participating in bond elections and vests in the majority of individual property owners voting in the election the power to approve or disapprove facilities that the municipal government has determined should be financed by issuing general obligation bonds. Placing such power in property owners alone can be justified only by some overriding interest of those owners that the State is entitled to recognize.
Second, although Arizona law ostensibly calls for the levy of real property taxes to service general obligation bonds, other revenues are legally available for this purpose. According to the parties’ stipulation in this case, it is anticipated with respect to the instant bonds, as has been true in the past, that more than half of the debt service requirements will be satisfied not from real property taxes but from revenues from other local taxes paid by nonproperty owners as ■well as those who own real property. Not only do those persons excluded from the franchise have a great interest in approving or disapproving municipal improvements, but they will also contribute, as directly as property owners, to the servicing of the bonds by the payment of taxes to be used for this purpose.
Third, the justification for restricting the franchise to the property owners would seem to be strongest in the case of a municipality which, unlike Phoenix, looks only to property tax revenues for servicing general obligation bonds. But even in such a case the justification would be insufficient. Property taxes may be paid initially by property owners, but a significant part of the ultimate burden of each year’s tax on rental property will very likely be borne by the tenant rather than the landlord since, as the parties also stipulated in this case, the landlord will treat the property tax as a business expense and normally will be able to pass all or a large part of this cost on to the tenants in the form of higher rent. Since most city residents not owning their own homes are lessees of dwelling units, virtually all residents share the burden of property taxes imposed and used to service general obligation bonds. Moreover, property taxes on commercial property, much of which is owned by corporations having no vote, will be treated as a cost of doing business and will normally be reflected in the prices of goods and services purchased by nonproperty owners and property owners alike.
While in theory the expected future income from real property, and hence property values in a municipality, may depend in part on the predicted future levels of property taxes, the actual impact of an increase in property taxes is problematical. Moreover, to the extent that property values are directly affected by the additional potential tax burden entailed in the bond issue, any adverse effect would normally be offset at least in substantial part by the favorable effects on property values of the improvements to be financed by the bond issue.
It is true that a general obligation bond may be loosely described as a “lien” on the property within the jurisdiction of the municipality in the sense that the issuer undertakes to levy sufficient taxes to service the bond. In theory, if the economy of the issuing city were to collapse, the levy of sufficiently high property taxes on property producing little or no income might result in some cases in defaults, foreclosures, and tax sales. Nothing before us, however, indicates that the possibility of future foreclosures to meet bond obligations significantly affects current real estate values or the ability of the concerned property owner to liquidate his holdings to avoid the risk of those future difficulties; the price of real estate appears to be more a function of the health of the local economy than a reflection of the level of property taxes imposed to finance municipal improvements. In any event, we are not convinced that the risk of future economic collapse that might result in bond obligations becoming an unshiftable, unsharable burden on property owners is sufficiently real or substantial to justify denying the vote in a current bond election to all those nonproperty owners who have a significant interest in the facilities to be financed, who are now indirectly sharing the property tax burden, and who will be paying other taxes used by the municipality to service its general obligation bonds.
We thus conclude that, although owners of real property have interests somewhat different from the interests of nonproperty owners in the issuance of general obligation bonds, there is no basis for concluding that non-property owners are substantially less interested in the issuance of these securities than are property owners. That there is no adequate reason to restrict the franchise on the issuance of general obligation bonds to property owners is further evidenced by the fact that only 14 States now restrict the franchise in this way; most States find it possible to protect property owners from excessive property tax burdens by means other than restricting the franchise to property owners. The States now allowing all qualified voters to vote in general obligation bond elections do not appear to have been significantly less successful in protecting property values and in soundly financing their municipal improvements. Nor have we been shown that the 14 States now restricting the franchise have unique problems that make it necessary to limit the vote to property owners. We must therefore affirm the District Court’s declaratory judgment that the challenged provisions of the Arizona Constitution and statutes, as applied to exclude nonproperty owners from elections for the approval of the issuance of general obligation bonds, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
II
In view of the fact that over the years many general obligation bonds have been issued on the good-faith assumption that restriction of the franchise in bond elections was not prohibited by the Federal Constitution, it would be unjustifiably disruptive to give our decision in this case full retroactive effect. We therefore adopt a rule similar to that employed with respect to the applicability of the Cipriano decision: our decision in this case will apply only to authorizations for general obligation bonds that are not final as of June 23, 1970, the date of this decision. In the case of States authorizing challenges to bond elections within a definite period, all elections held prior to the date of this decision will not be affected by this decision unless a challenge on the grounds sustained by this decision has been or is brought within the period specified by state law. In the case of States, including apparently Arizona, that do not have a well-defined period for bringing challenges to bond elections, all elections held prior to the date of this decision that have not yet been challenged on the grounds sustained in this decision prior to the date of this decision will not be open to challenge on the basis of our ruling in this case. In addition, in States with no definite challenge period, the validity of general obligation bonds that have been issued before this decision and prior to the commencement of an action challenging the issuance on the grounds sustained by this decision will not be affected by the decision in this case. Since ap-pellee in this case brought her constitutional challenge to the Phoenix election prior to the date of our decision in this case and no bonds have been issued pursuant to that election, our decision applies to the election involved in this case. The District Court was therefore correct in holding that the June 10, 1969, bond election in Phoenix was constitutionally invalid and in enjoining the issuance of bonds pursuant to the approval obtained in that election.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the judgment and in Part I of the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The relevant Arizona statute provides as follows:
“A. After the bonds are issued, the governing body or board shall enter upon its minutes a record of the bonds sold, their numbers and dates, and shall annually levy and cause to be collected a tax, at the same time and in the same manner as other taxes are levied and collected upon all taxable property in such political subdivision, sufficient to pay the interest on the bonds when due, and shall likewise annually levy a tax sufficient to redeem the bonds when they mature.
“B. Monies derived from the levy of the tax when collected shall constitute a fund for payment of interest and the bonds. The fund shall be kept separately and shall be known as the 'Interest Fund’ and ‘Redemption Fund.’” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §35-458 (1956).
In Allison v. City of Phoenix, 44 Ariz. 66, 33 P. 2d 927 (1934), the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the predecessor of this section permitted an issuing municipality to use other funds for debt service if such funds were available. In this case the parties have stipulated that for the 1969-1970 fiscal year $3,244,773 of the city’s total general obligation debt service requirement of $5,594,937 was met from sources other than ad valorem property taxes and that this apportionment of debt service burden is typical of recent years.
Ariz. Const., Art. 7, §13, Art. 9, §8; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§9-523, 35-452 (1956), §35-455 (Supp. 1969).
See n. 1, supra.
In 1967-1968, property taxes yielded $26.835 billion (approximately 86%) of the $31.171 billion raised in taxes by local governments. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Governmental Finances in 1967-68, p. 20 (1969).
For the 1969-1970 fiscal year, the City of Phoenix utilized revenues other than revenues from property taxes to meet over 55% of its general obligation debt service requirements. See n. 1, supra.
In this case the parties stipulated that “the amount of money paid as real property taxes is a cost of doing business of the [appellee’s] landlord and as such has a material bearing on the cost of the [appellee’s] rental payments.”
The extent to which a landlord can pass along an increase in property taxes to his tenants generally depends on how changes in rent levels in the municipality affect the amount of rental property demanded — the less responsive the demand for rental property to changes in rent levels, the larger the proportion of property taxes that will ultimately be borne by tenants. See C. Shoup, Public Finance 385-390 (1969); D. Netzer, Economics of the Property Tax 32-40 (1966); Simon, The Incidence of a Tax on Urban Real Property, in Readings in the Economics of Taxation 416 (published by the American Economic Assn. 1959).
In 1957, about 28%% of real property taxes paid to local governments in the United States were paid on commercial and industrial properties. See Netzer, supra, n. 6, at 19.
In theory, the value of property is the present value of the expected income to be earned from the property in the future; in the case of owner-occupied residences, this “income” is the satisfaction which the homeowners derive from the enjoyment of their residences. Property taxes on rental property will reduce the expected future earnings from the property to the extent that it is expected that the taxes cannot be passed on to tenants in the form of higher rent. See n. 6, supra. For owner-occupiers the property tax will reduce the expected “income” net of costs and will thus reduce the value of. their property. For a further discussion of this “capitalization” of unshiftable future property taxes, see H. Newman, An Introduction to Public Finance 262 (1968); Shoup, supra, n. 6, at 442-443; Netzer, supra, n. 6, at 34-36; J. Jensen, Property Taxation in the United States 63-75 (1931).
The empirical evidence on capitalization of unshifted property taxes has been described as “most unsatisfactory.” See Netzer, supra, n. 6, at 34-35; see also Shoup, supra, n. 6, at 443.
See Netzer, supra, n. 6, at 34.
It appears from the briefs filed in this ease that 13 States besides Arizona restrict the franchise to property owners or property taxpayers in some or all general obligation bond elections:
Alaska (Alaska Stat. § 07.30.010 (b) (Supp. 1969)); Colorado (Colo. Const., Art XI, §§ 6, 7, and 8); Florida (Fla. Const., Art. 7, §12); Idaho (Idaho Code Ann. §31-1905 (1963), §33-404 (Supp. 1969), § 50-1026 (1967)); Louisiana (La., Const-., Art. 14,, § 14 (a)) ; Michigan (Mich. Const., Art. II, § 6); Montana (Mont. Const., Art. IX, §2, Art. XIII, §5; Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. §11-2310 (1968), §75-3912 (1962)); New Mexico (N. M. Const., Art. IX, §§10, 11, and 12); New York (N. Y. Town Law §84 (1965); N. Y. Village Law §4r-402 (1966)); Oklahoma (Okla. Const., Art. X, § 27); Rhode Island (R. I. Const, amdt. 29, § 2); Texas (Tex. Const., Art. 6, §3a); Utah (Utah Const., Art. XIV, §3).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-1202 (Supp. 1969) and §16-1204 (1956) provide that election contest suits generally must be brought by “electors” within five days after completion of the canvass and declaration of the result of an election. Under the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Board of Supervisors, 67 Ariz. 133, 192 P. 2d 236 (1948), it is unclear whether suits brought after the expiration of the five-day period to challenge a bond election on constitutional grounds would in all cases be barred. The District Court found there was no bar to suit in this case. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. | What is the issue area of the decision? | [
"Criminal Procedure",
"Civil Rights",
"First Amendment",
"Due Process",
"Privacy",
"Attorneys",
"Unions",
"Economic Activity",
"Judicial Power",
"Federalism",
"Interstate Relations",
"Federal Taxation",
"Miscellaneous",
"Private Action"
] | [
1
] | sc |
ABRAMS et al. v. JOHNSON et al.
No. 95-1425.
Argued December 9, 1996
Decided June 19, 1997
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined, post, p. 103.
Deputy Solicitor General Waxman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Acting Solicitor General Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General Patrick, Deputy Solicitor General Bender, James A. Feldman, Steven H. Rosenbaum, and Miriam R. Eisenstein. Laugh-lin McDonald argued the cause for appellants Abrams et al. With him on the briefs were Neil Bradley, Mary Wyckoff, Elaine R. Jones, Norman J. Ckachkin, Jacqueline Berrien, and Gerald R. Weber.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia, argued the cause for appellees Miller et al. With him on the brief were Dennis R. Dunn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and David F. Walbert, Special Assistant Attorney General. A. Lee Parks argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees Johnson et al.
Together with No. 95-1460, United States v. Johnson et al., also on appeal from the same court.
J. Gerald Hebert filed a brief for the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Sharon L. Browne and Deborah J. La Fetra filed a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The electoral district lines for Georgia’s congressional delegation are before us a second time, appeal now being taken from the trial court’s rulings and determinations after our remand in Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900 (1995). The three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia was affirmed in Miller after it found the Eleventh Congressional District unconstitutional as then drawn. Race, we held, must not be a predominant factor in drawing the district lines. Id., at 915-917.
Given the contorted shape of the district and the undue predominance of race in drawing its lines, it was unlikely the district could be redrawn without changing most or all of Georgia’s congressional districts, 11 in total number. The plan being challenged contained three majority-black districts, and after our remand the complaint was amended to challenge another of these, the then-Second District. The trial court found this district, too, was improperly drawn under the standards we confirmed in Miller. Johnson v. Miller, 922 F. Supp. 1552 (1995).
For the task of drawing a new plan, the court deferred to Georgia’s Legislature, but the legislature could not reach agreement. The court then drew its owm plan, Johnson v. Miller, 922 F. Supp. 1556 (1995); we declined to stay the order; and the 1996 general elections were held under it. The court’s plan contained but one majority-black district. The absence of a second, if not a third, majority-black district has become the principal point of contention. Though the elections have been completed, the plan remains in effect until changed by a valid legislative Act, and the appellants ask us to set it aside.
The private appellants are various voters, defendant-intervenors below, who contend that the interests of Georgia’s black population were not adequately taken into account. The United States, also a defendant-intervenor, joins in the appeal. The state officials, defendants below, do not object to the plan and appeared before us as appellees to defend it. The other set of appellees are the private plaintiffs below, who argued that racial gerrymandering under the previous plan violated their right to equal protection.
The private appellants attack the court’s plan on five grounds. First, citing Upham v. Seamon, 456 U. S. 37 (1982) (per curiam), they say the District Court erred in disregarding the State’s legislative policy choices and in making more changes than necessary to cure constitutional defects in the previous plan. Second and third, they allege the plan violates §§2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1973, 1973c. Fourth, they argue the court’s plan contains significant population deviations and so violates the constitutional one-person, one-vote requirement. Fifth, they claim the District Court erred in not allowing private intervention on the question of the Second District’s unconstitutionality. The Justice Department included questions one, two, and four in its jurisdictional statement. Private appellants did not brief their fifth contention,- and we will not address it. The remaining challenges are unavailing as well, and we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
H-1
We first address appellants’ argument that the court exceeded the remedial power authorized by our decisions, particularly Upham v. Seamon, supra, by failing to follow policies of the state legislature. When faced with the necessity of drawing district lines by judicial order, a court, as a general rule, should be guided by the legislative policies underlying the existing plan, to the extent those policies do not lead to violations of the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. 456 U. S., at 43. Much of the argument from the parties centers around what legislative redistricting principles the District Court should have acknowledged in drawing its plan. The appellants say the relevant redistricting guideline should be the three majority-black districts of the pre-cleared plan at issue in Miller v. Johnson; and, if not, the two majority-black districts in an earlier legislative effort. These contentions require us to recite some of the background against which the Georgia Legislature — and later the trial court — attempted to draw the districts.
A
Much of the history is recounted in Miller v. Johnson, and we repeat only some of it here. The need for redistricting arose in 1990 when Georgia, because of its population increase, went from 10 authorized congressional seats to 11. To move ahead with redistricting, a special session of the legislature opened in August 1991. Because Georgia is a covered jurisdiction under § 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1973b(b), § 5 of the Act requires it to obtain either administrative preclearance by the Attorney General or approval by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for any change in a “standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. The proposed change must not have the purpose or effect “of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” Ibid. The legislature submitted a plan to the Attorney General for preclearance on October 1, 1991. See Appendix to this opinion (hereinafter Appendix), fig. 1. The plan contained two majority-black districts, the Fifth and the Eleventh. Previously, Georgia had one majority-black district, the Fifth.
The Department of Justice refused preclearance of this plan in January 1992. It then refused preclearance of a second plan submitted by the legislature, also with two majority-black districts. In its second refusal, the Department of Justice cited several alternative plans proposing three majority-black districts, including one called the “max-black” plan, drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for the General Assembly’s black caucus. At that point, the General Assembly set out to create three majority-black districts to gain preclearance. See Appendix, fig. 2. The plan as adopted used the ACLU’s max-black plan as a model. One of the three majority-black districts, the Eleventh, was a geographic “‘monstrosity, stretching from Atlanta to Savannah. Its core is the plantation country in the center of the state, lightly populated, but heavily black. It links by narrow corridors the black neighborhoods in Augusta, Savannah and southern DeKalb County.’” 515 U. S., at 909 (quoting M. Barone & G. Ujifusa, Almanac of American Politics 356 (1994)). The district as so drawn served its purpose, however, which was to secure preclear-anee from the Department of Justice.
On November 4, 1992, elections were held under the new plan, and all three majority-black districts elected black candidates. In 1994, five white voters from the Eleventh District filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, alleging a racial gerrymander in the lines of the Eleventh District, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause as interpreted in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630 (1993). The District Court panel found the district invalid, with one judge dissenting. Johnson v. Miller, 864 F. Supp. 1354 (1994).
We affirmed. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900 (1995). We rejected appellants’ argument that “regardless of the legislature’s purposes, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a district’s shape is so bizarre that it is unexplainable other than on the basis of race.” Id., at 910. We said “the essence of the equal protection claim recognized in Shaw is that the State has used race as a basis for separating voters into districts.” Id., at 911. And we explained that “[t]he plaintiff’s burden is to show, either through circumstantial evidence of a district’s shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.” Id., at 916.
We upheld two principal findings of the District Court indicating race was the predominant factor in constructing the Eleventh District. First, it was “'exceedingly obvious’” from the district’s contorted shape, together with the relevant racial demographics, that it was designed to bring in black populations. Id., at 917 (quoting 864 F. Supp., at 1375). Second, considerable evidence — including the State’s own concessions — showed that the General Assembly was driven by “a predominant, overriding desire” to create three majority-black districts to satisfy the Department of Justice. 515 U. S., at 917. The Justice Department, indeed, “ 'would accept nothing less than abject surrender to its maximization agenda.’” Ibid. (quoting 864 F. Supp., at 1366, n. 11).
We then considered whether the race-based districting satisfied strict scrutiny because it was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. As we noted, “[o]ur presumptive skepticism of all racial classifications” prohibited us “from accepting on its face the Justice Department’s conclusion that racial districting is necessary under the Voting Rights Act.” 515 U. S., at 922. After reviewing the evidence, we concluded that “[ijnstead of grounding its objections on evidence of a discriminatory purpose, it would appear the Government was driven by its policy of maximizing majority-black districts.” Id., at 924.
On remand, the District Court deferred to the Georgia Legislature, giving it time to draw a new congressional map. The Governor called a special session of the General Assembly, which met from August 14 to September 12, 1995. The legislature, however, deadlocked on the congressional reapportionment plan. The Georgia House of Representatives adopted a plan with two majority-black districts, Status Report of Defendants Miller, Howard, and Cleland, Aug. 31, 1995, Record, Pleadings Vol. 11, Doc. No. 295, while the Senate adopted a plan with one, Status Report of Defendants Miller, Howard, and Cleland, Sept. 5, 1995, id., Doc. No. 300. On September 13, 1995, defendants notified the District Court that the legislature was unable to resolve its differences and had adjourned, leaving the District Court to develop a remedy.
Plaintiffs had moved to amend their complaint to challenge the Second District as unconstitutional on the same grounds as the Eleventh District, and the court received additional evidence for the purpose. None of the private defendant-intervenors lived in the Second District and, assuming their lack of standing to defend it, they asked for the addition of other parties. The court disallowed the request, ruling the State could defend this aspect of the plan under review.
The court found that race was the “overriding and predominant factor” in drawing the Second District’s borders. 922 F. Supp., at 1553. The district, the court noted, split 12 of the district’s 35 counties, 28 of its precincts, and numerous cities. Linda Meggers, Director of Reapportionment Services for the Georgia General Assembly, was qualified as an expert witness and testified it was not possible to create a majority-black Second District without including the black population centers in Columbus and Muscogee Counties, Albany and Dougherty Counties, and Macon and Bibb Counties, which account for most of these splits. She also testified that in constructing the Second District, she followed the ACLU’s max-black plan. Id., at 1554-1555. As with the Eleventh District, the trial court found no compelling reason for the race-based districting of the Second District sufficient to survive strict scrutiny. The appellants do not appeal the determination by the trial court that the Second District as drawn could not survive scrutiny under the standards set forth in Miller, but they do say the trial court erred in not devising a second majority-black district for its own plan.
During the remedy phase, the defendants proposed a variety of plans. One was the 1991 unprecleared plan passed by the Georgia Legislature, with two majority-black districts. The Eleventh District in the 1991 plan closely resembled the Eleventh District in the precleared plan, which has been found improper. The ACLU submitted four plans. One of these, ACLU 1A, with two majority-black districts, was known as the “least change” plan because it was designed to make the minimal changes perceived to be necessary to correct constitutional defects in the existing plan. Another of the ACLU plans, Abrams A, had three majority-black districts. Abrams A split nine counties in the Second District and three in the Eleventh, and for racial reasons. Yet another plan, Abrams C, had two majority-black districts. And a plan jointly sponsored by John Lewis, a black Democratic Member of the United States House of Representatives from Georgia, and Newt Gingrich, a white Republican Member — the Lewis-Gingrich Amici-R plan — contained two majority-black districts. In response, it is said, to a submission by plaintiffs, the Justice Department submitted its “Illustrative Plan.” The Justice Department did not do so, however, until after the evidence closed. The plan contained two majority-black districts and split two counties outside the Atlanta area and numerous precincts. The plaintiffs objected to the submission. The District Court mentioned the Illustrative Plan in its opinion but did not give an explicit ruling on the objection. The late submission prevented the Justice Department’s demographer from being cross-examined about racial motivations, and for this reason its significance must be discounted.
The District Court considered the plans submitted by the various parties and then adopted its own. See Appendix, fig. 3. Noting the Justice Department’s thorough “subversion of the redistricting process” since the 1990 census, it based its plan on the State’s 1972 and 1982 plans. 922 F. Supp., at 1563. The court first had to decide where to locate the new Eleventh District, and did so in an area of significant population growth near Atlanta, so as to displace the fewest counties. It then considered Georgia’s traditional redistricting principles based on maintaining: district cores, four traditional “corner districts” in the corners of the State, political subdivisions such as counties and cities, and an urban majority-black district in the Atlanta area. Protecting incumbents from contests with each other was another factor, which the court subordinated to the others because it was “inherently more political.” Id., at 1565. The District Court stated that, in fashioning a remedy, it considered the possibility of creating a second majority-black district but decided doing so would require it to “subordinate Georgia’s traditional districting policies and consider race predominantly, to the exclusion of both constitutional norms and common sense.” Id., at 1566. Georgia did not have a black population of sufficient concentration to allow creation of a second majority-black district, the court found, adding that if it had the court “would have included one since Georgia’s legislature probably would have done so.” Id., at 1567, n. 16. The resulting plan contained one majority-black district, the Fifth. The plan split no counties outside the Atlanta area. The District Court rejected potential objections to the plan based on §§2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote.
B
Given this background, appellants say, the District Court’s plan violates our direction in Upham v. Seamon to take account of legislative preferences. In Upham, the District Court considered a reapportionment plan passed by the Texas Legislature. The Attorney General had objected under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act to a specific part of the plan, namely, the lines drawn for two contiguous districts in south Texas. He had approved the other 25 districts. The trial court, required to draw new lines, redrew not just the two districts found objectionable and their neighbors but also some unrelated districts in Dallas County, hundreds of miles to the north. 456 U. S., at 38. In the absence of a finding that the legislature’s reapportionment plan offended either the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, we held, the District Court “was not free ... to disregard the political program” of the state legislature. Id., at 43. See also White v. Weiser, 412 U. S. 783, 797 (1973).
The instant action presents a quite different situation from Upham, and for several reasons. In the first place, the pre-cleared plan is not owed Upham deference to the extent the plan subordinated traditional districting principles to racial considerations. Upham called on courts to correct — not follow — constitutional defects in districting plans. 456 U. S., at 43. In Miller, we found that when the Georgia Legislature yielded to the Justice Department’s threats, it also adopted the Justice Department’s entirely race-focused approach to redistricting — the max-black policy. 515 U. S., at 917-918. Using the precleared plan as the basis for a remedy would validate the very maneuvers that were a major cause of the unconstitutional districting.
Second, the constitutional violation here affects a large geographic area of the State; any remedy of necessity must affect almost every district. In Upham, only 2 contiguous districts out of 27 were in violation. Here, as the District Court pointed out, 2 of 11 districts were found unconstitutional, on opposite sides of the State, districts containing between them all or parts of nearly a third of Georgia’s counties. 922 F. Supp., at 1561. Almost every major population center in Georgia was split along racial lines. Under the circumstances, the District Court was justified in making substantial changes to the existing plan consistent with Georgia’s traditional districting principles, and considering race as a factor but not allowing it to predominate. This approach conforms to the rule explained in Upham.
Appellants’ most specific objection under Upham is that the court’s plan does not contain two majority-black districts. In particular, they point to the State’s original 1991 redistricting plan, denied preclearance, which contained two majority-black districts. As we have suggested above, however, the State was subjected to steady Justice Department pressure to create the maximum number of majority-black districts, and there is considerable evidence the State was predominantly driven by this consideration even in developing its 1991 plan. In support of their position, appellants rely on broad assertions in the State’s brief in this Court in Johnson v. Miller that the original plan “was not perceived as a ‘racial gerrymander.’” Brief for Miller Appellants in Miller v. Johnson, O. T. 1994, No. 94-631, p. 49. Against these assertions, appellees point to the testimony of Ms. Meggers, Director of Reapportionment Services for the Georgia General Assembly, that the second majority-black district was originally designed as a concession to the Justice Department’s max-black policy. After being presented with a proposed map of the Eleventh District, “[t]he initial response in our office was that’s ridiculous.” “It was said that it doesn’t make any sense and I said maybe not, but... we may get in trouble with the Justice Department if we don’t draw [it] . . . like that and I think that was . . . the main reason” it was originally drawn. Tr. 431-432 (Oct. 30,1995). Ms. Meggers referred to an “understanding” between the leadership in the legislature and the black caucus that a second majority-black district would be created. Id., at 431. The testimony of several legislators indicated that any such understanding was arrived at in the shadow of the Justice Department’s max-black goal, and that all other policies were to give way to this racial consideration. Robert Hanner, chairman of the House Reapportionment Committee, so indicated in his testimony. Id., at 74-75. Sonny Dixon, a member of the House Reapportionment Committee, confirmed this account and said legislators felt pressure from the Justice Department in 1990 to create all possible majority-black districts. Id., at 81. Thomas Murphy, Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives in 1990 and now, said in his deposition that the initial 1991 reapportionment plan was based on “what we at least perceived to be the direction and instructions of the Justice Department.” Deposition of Thomas B. Murphy, Record 22-23; see also id., at 4, 6. This evidence all refers to development of the original 1991 legislative plan, not the 1992 precleared plan, and thus undermines the contention that the legislature’s original plan should have been controlling on the District Court.
There is strong support, then, for finding the second majority-black district in Georgia’s 1991 unprecleared plan resulted in substantial part from the Justice Department’s policy of creating the maximum number of majority-black districts. It is not Justice Department interference per se that is the concern, but rather the fact that Justice Department pressure led the State to act based on an overriding concern with race. Given this background, it would have been most problematic for the trial court to insist on retaining a second majority-black district without regard to other, neutral districting factors. The trial court did not adopt this course. Instead, it gave careful consideration to creation of a second black district on grounds that a black voting population was one factor in drawing a district; and it concluded it could not draw the second majority-black district without allowing that one consideration to predominate over other traditional and neutral districting principles, principles which were a valid expression of legislative policy. There is ample basis in the record to support these conclusions. No other plan demonstrated a second majority-black district could be drawn while satisfying the constitutional requirement that race not predominate over traditional districting principles. The District Court said in its opinion that “[i]f Georgia had a concentrated minority population large enough to create a second majority-minority district without subverting traditional districting principles, the Court would have included one since Georgia’s legislature probably would have done so.” 922 F. Supp., at 1567, n. 16. The statements of several witnesses support the trial court’s independent conclusion it was not possible to do so. Ms. Meggers testified that, unless race was the predominant motive, a second majority-black district could not be drawn in Georgia. Tr. 434-435 (Oct. 30,1995). Speaker Murphy doubted “very seriously” a second majority-black district could be drawn in Georgia without violating the principles we laid down in Miller. Deposition, Oct. 26, 1995, Record 24.
The court found the 1991 unprecleared plan shared many of the constitutional defects of the precleared plan. Among other things, it connected the south DeKalb County urban black population with the mainly rural east Georgian minority population. 922 F. Supp., at 1563, n. 9. Indeed, the Eleventh District in the 1991 plan in many respects was almost the geographical monstrosity it became in the pre-cleared plan. The ACLU plans were introduced at the remedial hearing by Selwyn Carter, an employee of the Atlanta-based private Southern Regional Council whose job was to draw and advocate reapportionment plans across the South. Mr. Carter said his “basic goal” in preparing the plans was “[t]o show that it is possible to draw a plan in which African American voters comprise approximately 50 percent of the voting age population of a district and at the same time show that race was not a factor.” Tr. 296 (Oct. 30, 1995). The “least-change” plan, ACLU 1A, has numerous flaws. Besides its high population deviation, to be discussed, the Eleventh District has an iguana-like shape betraying the same invidious purpose we condemned in Miller. The only two plans close to the trial court’s in terms of population deviation are Abrams A and the Justice Department’s Illustrative Plan. Abrams A, with its three majority-black districts, splits nine counties in the Second District and three in the Eleventh, as well as numerous other counties in different parts of the State. The twisted shapes of its Second and Eleventh Districts again bear witness to racial motivation. The Illustrative Plan splits Bibb County — a county never before split in apportionment plans — to subsume Macon’s black population. Although the Justice Department submitted the plan after the close of evidence, and in consequence its demographer could not be cross-examined on the question of racial motivation, the District Court recognized its apparent racial impetus. 922 F. Supp., at 1561, n. 4. Indeed, the Justice Department acknowledged a racial motivation at oral argument before the Court. Tr. of Oral Arg. 12, 16. The Justice Department also suggested it was proper to split Bibb County because the mayor and city council of Macon supported splitting the county and city into different districts. Id., at 13. Macon’s alleged urge to be segregated for congressional districting purposes, however, cannot vitiate the equal protection rights of the Eleventh District’s objecting voters.
Interference by the Justice Department, leading the state legislature to act based on an overriding concern with race, disturbed any sound basis to defer to the 1991 unprecleared plan; the unconstitutional predominance of race in the provenance of the Second and Eleventh Districts of the 1992 pre-cleared plan caused them to be improper departure points; and the proposals for either two or three majority-black districts in plans urged upon the trial court in the remedy phase were flawed by evidence of predominant racial motive in their design. In these circumstances, the trial court acted well within its discretion in deciding it could not draw two majority-black districts without itself engaging in racial gerrymandering.
II
The court-ordered plan is not violative of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. We reject appellants’ contrary position, which is premised on impermissible vote dilution in the court’s failure to create a second majority-black district. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act applies to any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure ... imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision .....” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(a). On its face, § 2 does not apply to a court-ordered remedial redistricting plan, but we will assume courts should comply with the section when exercising their equitable powers to redistrict. A violation of §2 occurs if “it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of [a racial minority]... in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(b).
Our decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986), set out the basic framework for establishing a vote dilution claim against at-large, multimember districts; we have since extended the framework to single-member districts. Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 25, 40-41 (1998). Plaintiffs must show three threshold conditions: first, the minority group “is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district”; second, the minority group is “politically cohesive”; and third, the majority “votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it... to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.” 478 U. S., at 50-51. Once plaintiffs establish these conditions, the court considers whether, “on the totality of circumstances,” minorities have been denied an “equal opportunity” to “participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(b).
The trial court found that to create a second majority-black district in Georgia would require subordinating Georgia’s traditional districting policies and allowing race to predominate. 922 F. Supp., at 1566. We considered the determination in our discussion above and concluded it was well founded. If race is the predominant motive in creating districts, strict scrutiny applies, Bush v. Vera, 517 U. S. 952, 962 (1996), and the districting plan must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest in order to survive. We have assumed, without deciding, that compliance with §2 can be a compelling state interest. See, e. g., id., at 977; Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S., at 921. Here, there was no “strong basis in evidence,” Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S., at 656 (internal quotation marks omitted), to conclude that vote dilution, in violation of § 2, would occur in consequence of the court’s plan. In fact, none of the three Gingles factors, the threshold findings for a vote dilution claim, were established here. See Bush, supra, at 976-979.
Here the District Court found, without clear error, that the black population was not sufficiently compact for a second majority-black district. 922 F. Supp., at 1567. So the first of the Gingles factors is not satisfied. As we have noted before, § 2 does not require a State to create, on predominantly racial lines, a district that is not “reasonably compact.” Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U. S. 997, 1008 (1994). And the §2 compactness inquiry should take into account “traditional districting principles such as maintaining communities of interest and traditional boundaries.” Bush, supra, at 977.
The trial court also found the second and third Gingles factors — the extent of racially polarized voting — wanting. In the Eleventh District inquiry, the District Court found that § 2 did not justify drawing racial lines, and it discussed evidence of racial polarization at great length. The court found the statistical evidence was for the most part inconclusive and conflicting, but that the State’s expert, Dr. Joseph Katz, was convincing in his refutation of Dr. Allan Lichtman, the United States’ expert. 864 F. Supp., at 1388. The court found “a significant degree of crossover voting in Georgia and the Eleventh District,” id., at 1390, and that the record “fail[ed] to demonstrate ... chronic bloc voting,” id., at 1392. The court found that the average percentage of whites voting for black candidates across Georgia ranged from 22% to 38%, and the average percentage of blacks voting for white candidates ranged from 20% to 23%. Id., at 1390. As the court noted, “[b]lack and black-preferred candidates in Georgia have achieved many electoral victories in local and statewide elections and have received significant — occasionally overwhelming — support from both black and white voters within the Eleventh Congressional District.” Id., at 1390-1391. The results of the 1992 Democratic primary in the Eleventh District suggested to the court “a general willingness of white voters to vote for black candidates”: black candidates in that primary received about 55% of the white vote, and Cynthia McKinney, a black, won the runoff against a white with 23% of the white vote. Id., at 1391.
For the inquiry concerning the Second District and the remedy, appellants relied exclusively on the Eleventh District trial record. After the remedy hearing, the District Court reaffirmed its earlier findings and cited additional evidence of crossover voting. 922 F. Supp., at 1567. At the hearing concerning the Second District, Ms. Meggers stated that election results in the district indicated significant white crossover voting, and Representative Sanford Bishop, the black congressman elected in the Second District, agreed. Tr. 438, 142 (Oct. 30, 1995).
Appellants take issue with the District Court’s assessment of the level of white crossover voting, but argue that, in any event, the level of polarization the District Court found is sufficient to satisfy the Gingles threshold. Under the circumstances, we cannot say the District Court clearly erred in finding insufficient racial polarization in voting to meet the Gingles' requirements. The results of the 1996 general elections tend to support the District Court’s earlier finding of “a general willingness of white voters to vote for black candidates.” 864 F. Supp., at 1391. All three black incumbents won elections under the court plan, two in majority-white districts running against white candidates. (In Gin-gles, the Court indicated that incumbency is a “special circumstanc[e]” to be taken into account in evaluating racial bloc voting. 478 U. S., at 57. And in this action, the black candidates’ success in two majority-white districts, quite different from their previous districts, is testimony to the “general willingness” of whites to vote for blacks.) These results also underscore the weakness of the Justice Department’s methodology of calculating the likelihood of a black-preferred candidate winning based on strict racial percentages. Brief for United States 27, and n. 18. The Justice Department predicted that a black-preferred candidate “would likely be foreclosed from winning” in the court plan’s Tenth District, and that “[t]he same result would follow even more clearly” in the court’s Fourth District, which had a black voting age population of 33%. Id., at 27. In fact, Representative McKinney won in the Fourth District.
Appellants argue the District Court’s findings on §2 are inconsistent and not owed deference, since the court held § 2 required maintenance of the majority-black Fifth District but not creation of a new majority-black district. The District Court found the black population in the Fifth District “is sufficiently compact and, being an urban minority population, has a sufficiently strong community of interest to warrant being a majority-minority district.” 922 F. Supp., at 1568. The court also said the probability of electing a candidate is below 50% when the percentage of black registered voters is 50%, ibid., and therefore the percentage of black registered voters should be kept as close to 55% as possible in the Fifth District. (The District Court noted, however, that it was uncomfortable using percentages of registered voters rather than voting age population, since “that in essence condones voter apathy.” Id., at 1568, n. 18.) The court made no explicit findings about differences in the racial polarization of voting between the Fifth and Eleventh Districts.
We do not agree that the District Court’s maintenance of the Fifth District as a majority-black district under §2 indicates its § 2 findings in reference to other districts are conflicting and not entitled to deference. The District Court noted that maintenance of a majority-black district in the Atlanta area — created in 1972 for compliance with the Voting Rights Act — had become a state districting policy. Id., at 1565. Further, it is possible, although we do not express any opinion on the subject, that changing the racial majority of the district would have violated §5 retrogression principles.
Private appellants also argue no deference is due the District Court’s § 2 finding both because the court did not hold a separate hearing on whether its remedial plan violated § 2 and because it barred private intervention to defend the constitutionality of the Second District. We do not agree. First, neither our precedents nor the Act require the court to hold a separate hearing on the adequacy under §2 of a remedial plan. Second, the private defendant-intervenors had ample opportunity to present evidence of the need for a second majority-black district under § 2 at the remedy hearing, in which they fully participated. The finding that appellants have not shown the threshold Gingles factors for a §2 violation is owed deference, and we find it not clearly erroneous.
r-H H-i
The private appellants contend the District Court’s plan also violates §5 of the Voting Rights Act. Although the Justice Department did not include this claim in its jurisdictional statement, it agrees with private appellants and briefed the issue.
As we noted above, § 5 requires covered jurisdictions to obtain either administrative preclearance by the Attorney General or approval from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for any change in a “standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting,” and requires that the proposed change “not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. We have explained that “the purpose of § 5 has always been to insure that no voting-procedure changes would be made that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 141 (1976).
The question arises whether a court decree is subject to § 5. We have held that “[a] decree of the United States District Court is not within reach of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act” such that it must be precleared. Connor v. Johnson, 402 U. S. 690, 691 (1971) (per curiam). The exception applies to judicial plans, devised by the court itself, not to plans submitted to the court by the legislature of a covered jurisdiction in response to a determination of unconstitutionality. McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130, 148-152 (1981). Here, the District Court made clear it had devised its own plan, a proposition not in dispute. In Sanchez, we emphasized language in a Senate Committee Report saying that, although preclearance does not apply to court-devised plans, “‘in fashioning the plan, the court should follow the appropriate Section 5 standards, including the body of administrative and judicial precedents developed in Section 5 cases.’” Id., at 149 (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-295, p. 19 (1975)). This is a reasonable standard, at the very least as an equitable factor to take into account, if not as a statutory mandate.
Appellants, however, have some difficulty fixing on a benchmark against which to measure any retrogression. Private appellants say the benchmark should be either the State’s initial 1991 plan, containing two majority-black districts, or the State’s “policy and goal of creating two majority black districts.” Brief for Appellants 48. The Justice Department, for its part, contends the proper benchmark is the 1992 precleared plan, altered to cure its constitutional defects.
Here, as we have noted above in our discussions of both Upham and § 2, appellants have not demonstrated it was possible to create a second majority-black district within constitutional bounds. So, even were we to accept one of their proposed benchmarks, their desired remedy would be unconstitutional. As it happens, none of appellants’ proposed benchmarks is appropriate. The private appellants’ first proposal was not in effect in Georgia because it was refused preclearance. It thus could not operate as a benchmark under the Attorney General’s regulations:
“In determining whether a submitted change is retrogressive the Attorney General will normally compare the submitted change to the voting practice or procedure in effect at the time of the submission. If the existing practice or procedure upon submission was not in effect on the jurisdiction’s applicable date for coverage . . . and is not otherwise legally enforceable under section 5, it cannot serve as a benchmark, and . . . the comparison shall be with the last legally enforceable practice or procedure used by the jurisdiction.” 28 CFR § 51.54(b)(1) (1996).
See also Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874, 883-884 (1994) (“Under § 5, then, the proposed voting practice is measured against the existing voting practice .... The baseline for comparison is present by definition; it is the existing status. . . . [Tjhere is little difficulty in discerning the two voting practices to compare to determine whether retrogression would occur”); Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 520 U. S. 471, 478 (1997). There are sound reasons for requiring benchmarks to be plans that have been in effect; otherwise a myriad of benchmarks would be proposed in every case, with attendant confusion. This rule is all the more appropriate when one considers the attempt to use as a benchmark the State’s supposed policy of creating two majority-black districts. And the Justice Department’s proposed benchmark — the 1992 plan shorn of its constitutional defects — was also never in effect. Nor can the 1992 plan, constitutional defects and all, be the benchmark. Section 5 cannot be used to freeze in place the very aspects of a plan found unconstitutional.
The appropriate benchmark is, in fact, what the District Court concluded it would be: the 1982 plan, in effect for a decade. 922 F. Supp., at 1569, n. 20. Appellants have not shown that black voters in any particular district suffered a retrogression in their voting strength under the court plan measured against the 1982 plan. Absent such proof, there is no violation of §5. We reject appellants’ assertion that, even using the 1982 plan as a benchmark, the court’s plan is retrogressive. They claim that under the 1982 plan 1 of the 10 districts (10%) was majority black, while under the District Court’s plan 1 of 11 districts (9%) is majority black, and therefore blacks do not have the same electoral opportunities under the District Court’s plan. Under that logic, each time a State with a majority-minority district was allowed to add one new district because of population growth, it would have to be majority-minority. This the Voting Rights Act does not require.
IV
Finally, appellants contend the District Court’s plan violates the constitutional guarantee of one person, one vote under Article I, §2. This provision requires congressional districts to achieve population equality “as nearly as is practicable.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 7-8 (1964). Court-ordered districts are held to higher standards of population equality than legislative ones. A court-ordered plan should “ordinarily achieve the goal of population equality with little more than de minimis variation.” Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 26-27 (1975); Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 414 (1977) (same). Here the District Court was not designing districts to remedy a one-person, one-vote violation, but courts should keep in mind that “absolute population equality [is] the paramount objective.” Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 732 (1983). Slight deviations are allowed under certain circumstances. Chapman, supra, at 26 (“With a court plan, any deviation from approximate population equality must be supported by enunciation of historically significant state policy or unique features”); Connor, supra, at 419-420 (same); Karcher, supra, at 740 (“Any number of consistently applied legislative policies might justify some variance, including, for instance, making districts compact, respecting municipal boundaries, preserving the cores of prior districts, and avoiding contests between incumbent[s]”).
To help in interpreting what follows, we explain a few terms. Overall population deviation is the difference in population between the two districts with the greatest disparity. Average population deviation is the average of all districts’ deviation from perfect one-person, one-vote allocation. If population allocation in Georgia were perfect, each district would have 588,928 people, according to 1990 census data.
Here, the District Court plan has an overall population deviation of 0.35%, and an average deviation of 0.11%. The plan has a lower deviation than: the 1992 plan (with its 0.93% overall deviation and its 0.35% average deviation); the 1982 plan; or “any other plan presented to the Court which was not otherwise constitutionally defective.” 922 F. Supp., at 1561. Private appellants and amici in fact proposed plans with much higher deviations. ACLU 1A, the “least change” plan, had an overall population deviation of 0.94%; Abrams C had an overall deviation of 0.99%; and the Lewis-Gingrich Amici-R plan came in last place with an overall deviation of 1.86%. The only plans with lower overall deviations than the court’s plan were the Justice Department’s Illustrative Plan (0.19%) and the ACLU’s Abrams A (0.29%), whose constitutional infirmities are discussed above.
The District Court recited in detail those state policies and conditions which support the plan’s slight deviations. The court explained Georgia’s “strong historical preference” for not splitting counties outside the Atlanta area, 922 F. Supp., at 1561, and for not splitting precincts, id., at 1562. (The court observed that some splitting of precincts was unavoidable in Cobb County because of noncontiguous annexation patterns, and that it had split some precincts in Clayton County to achieve lower population deviations. Id., at 1562, n. 6.) The court acknowledged that maintaining political subdivisions alone was not enough to justify less than perfect deviation in a court plan. See, e. g., Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U. S. 526, 533-534 (1969) (“[W]e do not find legally acceptable the argument that variances are justified if they necessarily result from a State’s attempt to avoid fragmenting political subdivisions by drawing congressional district lines along existing county, municipal, or other political subdivision boundaries”). The District Court, in conformance with this standard, considered splitting counties outside the Atlanta area, but found other factors “unique to Georgia” weighed against it. See Chapman, supra, at 26. These in-eluded maintaining core districts and communities of interest. Georgia has an unusually high number of counties: 159, the greatest number of any State in the Union apart from the much-larger Texas. These small counties represent communities of interest to a much greater degree than is common, and we agree with the District Court that “such a proliferation” provides “ample building blocks for acceptable voting districts without chopping any of those blocks in half.” 864 F. Supp., at 1377.
In any case, even if we had found the court plan’s population deviation unacceptable, the solution would not be adoption of the constitutionally infirm, because race-based, plans of appellants. Indeed, before this Court at oral argument private appellants acknowledged the remedy for any one-person, one-vote violation would not be creation of a second majority-black district. Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29. Rather, we would require some very minor changes in the court’s plan— a few shiftings of precincts — to even out districts with the greatest deviations.
That exercise, however, and appellant’s objections to the court plan’s slight population deviations, are increasingly futile. We are now more than six years from the last census, on which appellants’ data is based. The difference between the court plan’s average deviation (0.11%) and the Illustrative Plan’s (0.07%) is 0.04%, which represents 328 people out of a perfect district population of 588,928. The population of Georgia has not stood still. Georgia is one of the fastest-growing States, and continues to undergo population shifts and changes. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 29 (1996) (Table 28) (showing Georgia tied for seventh place among the States in percentage of population growth from 1990 to 1995, with 11.2% growth). In light of these changes, the tinkerings appellants propose would not reflect Georgia’s true population distribution in any event. The Karcher Court, in explaining the absolute equality standard, acknowledged that “census data are not perfect,” and that “population counts for particular localities are outdated long before they are completed.” 462 U. S., at 732. Karcher was written only two years from the previous census, however, and we are now more than six years from one. The magnitude of population shifts since the census is far greater here than was likely to be so in Karcher. These equitable considerations disfavor requiring yet another reapportionment to correct the deviation.
V
The task of redistricting is best left to state legislatures, elected by the people and as capable as the courts, if not more so, in balancing the myriad factors and traditions in legitimate districting policies. Here, the legislative process was first distorted and then unable to reach a solution. The District Court was left to embark on a delicate task with limited legislative guidance. The court was careful to take into account traditional state districting factors, and it remained sensitive to the constitutional requirement of equal protection of the laws.
* * *
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
[Appendix to opinion of the Court follows this page.] | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. | What is the issue area of the decision? | [
"Criminal Procedure",
"Civil Rights",
"First Amendment",
"Due Process",
"Privacy",
"Attorneys",
"Unions",
"Economic Activity",
"Judicial Power",
"Federalism",
"Interstate Relations",
"Federal Taxation",
"Miscellaneous",
"Private Action"
] | [
1
] | sc |
LEWIS, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, v. MANUFACTURERS NATIONAL BANK OF DETROIT.
No. 94.
Argued December 15, 1960.
Decided January 9, 1961.
Stuart E. Hertzberg argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Herbert N. Weingarten.
Richard D. Rohr argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Henry I. Armstrong, Jr. Louis F. Dahling entered an appearance for respondent.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The bankrupt borrowed money from respondent on November 4, 1957, giving as security a chattel mortgage on an automobile. In Michigan, where the transaction took place, mortgages were void as against creditors of the mortgagor unless filed with the Register of Deeds with a special dispensation to purchase-money mortgages if filed within 14 days of the execution of the mortgage. This mortgage, however, was not a purchase-money mortgage; and though executed on November 4, 1957, it was not recorded until November 8,1957.
Over five months later — on April 18, 1958 — the borrower filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy and an adjudication of bankruptcy followed, petitioner being named trustee.
There was no evidence that any creditor had extended credit between November 4, the date of the execution of the mortgage, and November 8, the date of its recordation. But since the mortgage had not been recorded immediately, the referee held that it was void as against the trustee. The referee relied upon § 70c of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 110 (c), which, so far as material here, reads:
“The trustee, as to all property, whether or not coming into possession or control of the court, upon which a creditor of the bankrupt could have obtained a lien by legal or equitable proceedings at the date of bankruptcy, shall be deemed vested as of such date with all the rights, remedies, and powers of a creditor then holding a lien thereon by such proceedings, whether or not such a creditor actually exists.”
He ruled that § 70c “clothes the Trustee with the rights of a creditor who could have obtained a lien at the date of bankruptcy whether or not such a creditor exists.” He concluded that under Michigan law a creditor could have taken prior to the mortgage had he extended credit during the four-day period when the mortgage was “off record” and that therefore the trustee can claim the same rights, even though there was no such creditor. The District Court overruled the referee and the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court. 275 F. 2d 454. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because of a conflict between that decision and Constance v. Harvey, 215 F. 2d 571, decided by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and subsequently followed by the same court in Conti v. Volper, 229 F. 2d 317. 363 U. S. 837.
Petitioner’s case turns on the words, “upon which a creditor of the bankrupt could have obtained a lien . . . whether or not such a creditor actually exists,” contained in § 70c.
Prior to 1910 the trustee had no better title to the property than the bankrupt had. See York Mfg. Co. v. Cassell, 201 U. S. 344, 352; Zartman v. First National Bank, 216 U. S. 134, 138. The provision with which we are here concerned was written into the law in 1910 to give the trustee all the rights of an ideal judicial lien creditor.
The predecessor of the present § 70c was § 47a (2) of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended by the 1910 Act which provided in relevant part:
. . such trustees, as to all property in the custody or coming into the custody of the bankruptcy court, shall be deemed vested with all the rights, remedies, and powers of a creditor holding a lien by legal or equitable proceedings thereon; and also, as to all property not in the custody of the bankruptcy court, shall be deemed vested with all the rights, remedies, and powers of a judgment creditor holding an execution duly returned unsatisfied.” 36 Stat. 840.
That language was held to give the trustee the status of a creditor “as of the time when the petition in bankruptcy is filed.” Bailey v. Baker Ice Machine Co., 239 U. S. 268, 276.
In 1938 the relevant provisions of § 47a (2) were transferred to § 70c with no material change.
In 1950 § 70c was recast to read as follows:
. . The trustee, as to all property of the bankrupt at the date of bankruptcy whether or not coming into possession or control of the court, shall be deemed vested as of the date of bankruptcy with all the rights, remedies, and powers of a creditor then holding a lien thereon by legal or equitable proceedings, whether or not such a creditor actually exists.” 64 Stat. 26.
Thus the distinction between property in the possession of the bankrupt as of the date of bankruptcy and other property was abolished; and the trustee was given the status of a creditor holding a lien through legal or equitable proceedings as to both types of property. This 1950 Amendment, however, created an anomaly. The House Report accompanying a 1952 amendment that cast § 70c in its present form states:
“. . . it is now recognized that the amendment did not accurately express what was intended. Since the trustee already has title to all of the bankrupt’s property, it is not proper to say that he has the rights of a lien creditor upon his own property. What should be said is that he has the rights of a lien creditor upon property in which the bankrupt has an interest or as to which the bankrupt may be the ostensible owner. Accordingly, the language of section 70c has been revised so as to clarify its meaning and state more accurately what is intended.”
We think that one consistent theory underlies the several versions of § 70c which we have set forth, vis., that the rights of creditors — whether they are existing or hypothetical — to which the trustee succeeds are to be ascertained as of “the date of bankruptcy,” not at an anterior point of time. That is to say, the trustee acquires the status of a creditor as of the time when the petition in bankruptcy is filed. We read the statutory words “the rights ... of a creditor [existing or hypothetical] then holding a lien” to refer to that date.
This construction seems to. us to fit the scheme of the Act. Section 70e enables the trustee to set aside fraudulent transfers which creditors having provable claims could void. The construction of § 70c which petitioner urges would give the trustee power to set aside transactions which no creditor could void and which injured no creditor. That construction would enrich unsecured creditors at the expense of secured creditors, creating a windfall merely by reason of the happenstance of bankruptcy.
It is true that in some instances the trustee has rights which existing creditors may not have. Section 11, 11 U. S. C. § 29, gives him two years to institute legal proceedings regardless of what limitations creditors might have been under. Section 60, 11 U. S. C. § 96, gives him the right to recover preferential transfers made by the bankrupt within four months whether or not creditors had that right by local law. A like power exists under § 67a, 11 U. S. C. § 107 (a), as respects the invalidation of judicial liens obtained within four months of bankruptcy when the bankrupt was insolvent. Section 67d, 11 U. S. C. § 107 (d), carefully defines transactions which may be voided if made “within one year prior to the filing” of the petition.
Congress in striking a balance between secured and unsecured creditors has provided for specific periods of repose beyond which transactions of the bankrupt prior to bankruptcy may no longer be upset — except and unless existing creditors can set them aside. Yet if we construe § 70c as petitioner does, there would be no period of repose. Security transactions entered into in good faith years before the bankruptcy could be upset if the trustee were ingenious enough to conjure up a hypothetical situation in which a hypothetical creditor might have had such a right. The rule pressed upon us would deprive a mortgagee of his rights in States like Michigan, if the mortgage had been executed months or even years previously and there had been a delay of a day or two in recording without any creditor having been injured during the period when the mortgage was unrecorded.
That is too great a wrench for us to give the bankruptcy system, absent a plain indication from Congress which is lacking here.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan:
As the judge who wrote for the Court of Appeals in Constance v. Harvey, 215 F. 2d 571, I think it appropriate to say that I have long since come to the view that the second opinion in Constance, 215 F. 2d 575, was ill-considered. I welcome this opportunity to join in setting the matter right.
Mich. Comp. Laws, 1948, § 566.140, as amended by Pub. Acts 1957, No. 233. In 1959, by Pub. Acts 1959, No. 110, a 10-day grace period was given to all mortgagees vis-á-vis creditors.
See MacLachlan, Bankruptcy (1956), p. 187. The Committee Report concerning the 1910 Amendment said:
“It is evident that in the proposed amendment attempt is made to give effect to two ideas quite distinct: First, that as to the property in the custody of the bankruptcy court the bankruptcy trustee shall be considered to have the same title that a creditor holding an execution or other lien by legal or equitable proceedings levied upon that property would have under state law: and, second,' that as to property not in the custody of the bankruptcy court the trustee should stand in the position of a judgment creditor holding an execution returned unsatisfied, thus entitling him to proceed precisely as an individual creditor might have done to subject assets. In this way, in effect, proceedings in bankruptcy will give to creditors all the rights that creditors under the state law might have had had there been no bankruptcy and from which they are debarred by the bankruptcy — certainly a very desirable and eminently fair position to be granted to the trustee.” H. R. Rep. No. 511, 61st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 7.
See MacLachlan, Bankruptcy (1956), p. 187; H. R. Rep. No. 1409, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 4, 34-35.
H. R. Rep. No. 2320, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 16.
While § 70c speaks of “the date of bankruptcy,” that term is defined as “the date when the petition was filed.” Section 1 (13), 11 U. S. C. § 1 (13).
After the decision in Constance v. Harvey, 215 F. 2d 571, 575, Congress passed a bill to change its holding. The President vetoed the bill, stating:
“I have withheld my approval of H. R. 7242, to amend sections 1, 57j, 64a (5), 67b, 67c, and 70c of the Bankruptcy Act, and for other further purposes.
“I recognize the need for legislation to solve certain problems regarding the priority of liens in bankruptcy, but this bill is not a satisfactory solution. It would unduly and unnecessarily prejudice the sound administration of Federal tax laws. In some cases, for example, mortgages would be given an unwarranted priority over Federal tax liens even though the mortgage is recorded after the filing of the tax lien.
“This and other defects of the bill can, I believe, be corrected without compromising its primary and commendable purpose.” Cong. Rec., September 16, 1960, p. A7013.
The Committee Report, urging that amendment, made clear the inequity that might often result if § 70c is construed as Constance v. Harvey, supra, construed it:
“The holding in Constance v. Harvey, by injecting into section 70c the substance of 70e, created the statutorily unwarranted status of a hypothetical creditor with rights relating back to a date prior to bankruptcy. While bankruptcy is in effect a general levy on the property of the bankrupt for the benefit of his creditors, it is not a license for the trustee, irrespective of prejudice to creditors, to avoid at will any security given by the .bankrupt which remained imper-fected for any period of time prior to bankruptcy. Yet this is the effect of Constance v. Harvey. Under this decision the only limit to the power of the trustee is his ability to conceive of some right of a creditor that can be used as a basis for striking down imperfect transfers. The doctrine of Constance v. Harvey presents a very real threat to security transactions, the validity of which have hitherto not been subject to challenge under the act. Moreover, this is a threat which is not required by the policy of the act, since the creditors who have been prejudiced by the imperfections of a transfer are normally protected under section 70e.” H. R. Rep. No. 746, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 8-9.
See Seligson, Creditors’ Rights, Jour. Nat. Assoc. Referees in Bankruptcy, Oct. 1957, 113, 118; Marsh, Constance v. Harvey—The “Strong-Arm Clause” Re-Evaluated, 43 Cal. L. Rev. 65; Note, 57 Mich. L. Rev. 1227.
See, e. g., § 70e, concerning which H. R. Rep. No. 1409, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 32, stated, “. . . under section 70e the trustee may avoid any transfer which any creditor might have avoided under applicable State law, and there is no time limitation in such case.” | 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. | What is the ideological direction of the decision? | [
"Conservative",
"Liberal",
"Unspecifiable"
] | [
0
] | sc |
PENRY v. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION
No. 00-6677.
Argued March 27, 2001
Decided June 4, 2001
Robert S. Smith argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Julia Tarver and John E. Wright.
Andy Taylor, First Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were John Cornyn, Attorney General, Gregory S. Coleman, Solicitor General, Michael T McCaul, Deputy Attorney General, Edward L. Marshall, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Gena Blount Bunn and Tommy L. Skaggs, Assistant Attorneys General.
Gene C. Schmrr argued the cause for the State of Alabama as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Bill Pryor, Attorney General, J. Clayton Crenshaw, Assistant Attorney General, Carter G. Phillips, and Rebecca K. Smith
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Association on Mental Retardation et al. by James W. Ellis, Michael B. Browde, Jeffrey J. Pokorak, and Stanley S. Herr; and for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Edward M. Chikofsky, Lisa B. Kemler, John H. Pickering, and Christopher J Herrling.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger and Charles L. Hobson; and for Justice for All by Patrick F. Philbin.
Richard Wilson and William J. Edwards filed a brief for the International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities et al. as amici curiae.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1989, we held that Johnny Paul Penry had been sentenced to death in violation of the Eighth Amendment because his jury had not been adequately instructed with respect to mitigating evidence. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) (Penry I). The State of Texas retried Penry in 1990, and that jury also found him guilty of capital murder and sentenced him to death. We now consider whether the jury instructions at Penry’s resentencing complied with our mandate in Penry I. We also consider whether the admission into evidence of statements from a psychiatric report based on an uncounseled interview with Penry ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment.
I
Johnny Paul Penry brutally raped and murdered Pamela Carpenter on October 25,1979. In 1980, a Texas jury found him guilty of capital murder. At the close of the penalty hearing, the jury was instructed to answer three statutorily mandated “special issues”:
“ ‘(1) whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result;
“*(2) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and “‘(3) if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased.’ ” Id., at 310 (quoting Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071(b) (Vernon 1981 and Supp. 1989)).
The jury answered “yes” to each issue and, as required by statute, the trial court sentenced Penry to death. 492 U. S., at 310-311.
Although Penry had offered extensive evidence that he was mentally retarded and had been severely abused as a child, the jury was never instructed that it could consider and give mitigating effect to that evidence in imposing sentence. Id., at 320. Nor was any of the three special issues broad enough in scope that the jury could consider and give effect to the mitigating evidence in. answering the special issue. Id., at 322-325. While Penry’s mental retardation was potentially relevant to the first special issue — whether he had acted deliberately — we found no way to be sure that the jurors fully considered the mitigating evidence as it bore on the broader question of Penry’s moral culpability. Id., at 322-323. As to the second issue — whether Penry would be a future danger — the evidence of his mental retardation and history of abuse was “relevant only as an aggravating factor.” Id., at 323 (emphasis in original). And the evidence was simply not relevant in a mitigating way to the third issue — whether Penry had unreasonably responded to any provocation. Id., at 324-325.
The comments of counsel also failed to clarify the jury’s role. Defense counsel had urged the jurors to vote “no” on one of the special issues if they believed that Penry, because of the mitigating evidence, did not deserve to be put to death. The prosecutor, however, had reminded them of their “oath to follow the law and ... answe[r] these questions based on the evidence and following the law.” Id., at 325 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“In light of the prosecutor’s argument, and ... in the absence of instructions informing the jury that it could consider and give effect to the mitigating evidence of Penry’s mental retardation and abused background by declining to impose the death penalty,” we concluded that “a reasonable juror could well have believed that there was no vehicle for expressing the view that Penry did not deserve to be sentenced to death based upon his mitigating evidence.” Id., at 326, 328. We thus vacated Penry’s sentence, confirming that in a capital case, “[t]he sentencer must... be able to consider and give effect to [mitigating] evidence in imposing sentence,” so that "‘the sentence imposed . . . reflee[ts] a reasoned moral response to the defendant’s background, character, and crime.’” Id., at 319 (quoting California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538, 545 (1987) (O’Connoe, J., concurring) (emphasis in original)).
Penry was retried in 1990 and again found guilty of capital murder. During the penalty phase, the defense again put on extensive evidence regarding Penry’s mental impairments and childhood abuse. One defense witness on the subject of Penry’s mental impairments was Dr. Randall Price, a clinical neuropsychologist. On direct examination, Dr. Price testified that he believed Penry suffered from organic brain impairment and mental retardation. App. 276-279; 878. In the course of cross-examining Dr. Price, the prosecutor asked what records Price had reviewed in preparing his testimony. Price cited 14 reports, including a psychiatric evaluation of Penry prepared by Dr. Felix Peebles on May 19,1977. Id., at 327. The Peebles report had been prepared at the request of Penry’s then-counsel to determine Penry’s competency to stand trial on a 1977 rape charge — unrelated to the rape and murder of Pamela Carpenter. Id., at 55-60, 125. The prosecutor asked Dr. Price to read a specific portion of the Peebles report for the jury. Over the objection of defense counsel, Dr. Price recited that it was Dr. Peebles’ "professional opinion that if Johnny Paul Penry were released from custody, that he would be dangerous to other persons.” Id., at 413. The prosecutor again recited this portion of the Peebles report during his closing argument. Id., at 668.
When it came time to submit the case to the jury, the court instructed the jury to determine Penry’s sentence by answering three special issues — the same three issues that had been put before the jury in Penry I. Specifically, the jury had to determine whether Penry acted deliberately when he killed Pamela Carpenter; whether there was a probability that Penry would be dangerous in the future; and whether Penry acted unreasonably in response to provocation. App. 676-678. Cf. Penry I, 492 U.S., at 320.
The court told the jury how to determine its answers to those issues:
“[Bjefore any issue may be answered ‘Yes/ all jurors must be convinced by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to such issue should be Tes.’... [I]f any juror, after considering the evidence and these instructions, has a reasonable doubt as to whether the answer to a Special Issue should be answered ‘Yes,' then such juror should vote ‘No' to that Special Issue." App. 672-673.
The court explained the consequences of the jury’s decision:
“[I]f you return an affirmative finding on each of the special issues submitted to you, the court shall sentence the defendant to death. You are further instructed that if you return a negative finding on any special issue submitted to you, the court shall sentence the defendant to the Texas Department of Corrections for life. You are therefore instructed that your answers to the special issues, which determine the punishment to be assessed the defendant by the court, should be reflective of your finding as to the personal culpability of the defendant, JOHNNY PAUL PENRY, in this case." Id., at 674-675.
The court then gave the following ‘‘supplemental instruction":
“You are instructed that when you deliberate on the questions posed in the special issues, you are to consider mitigating circumstances, if any, supported by the evidence presented in both phases of the trial, whether presented by the state or the defendant. A mitigating circumstance may include, but is not limited to, any aspect of the defendant’s character and record or circumstances of the crime which you believe could make a death sentence inappropriate in this case. If you find that there are any mitigating circumstances in this case, you must decide how much weight they deserve, if any, and therefore, give effect and consideration to them in assessing the defendant’s personal culpability at the time you answer the special issue. If you determine, when giving effect to the mitigating evidence, if any, that a life sentence, as reflected by a negative finding to the issue under consideration, rather than a death sentence, is an appropriate response to the personal culpability of the defendant, a negative finding should be given to one of the special issues.” Id., at 675.
A complete copy of the instructions was attached to the verdict form, and the jury took the entire packet into the deliberation room. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31. The verdict form itself, however, contained only the text of the three special issues, and gave the jury two choices with respect to each special issue: “We, the jury, unanimously find and determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to this Special Issue is Tes,’” or “We, the jury, because at least ten (10) jurors have a reasonable doubt as to the matter inquired about in this Special Issue, find and determine that the answer to this Special Issue is ‘No.’ ” App. 676-678.
After deliberating for approximately 2Yz hours, the jury returned its punishment verdiet. See 51 Record 1948,1950. The signed verdict form confirmed that the jury had unanimously agreed that the answer to each special issue was “yes.” App. 676-678. In accordance with state law, the court sentenced Penry to death.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Penry’s conviction and sentence. The court rejected Penry’s claim that the admission of language from the 1977 Peebles report violated Penry’s Fifth Amendment‘ privilege against self-incrimination. The court reasoned that because Dr. Peebles had examined Penry two years prior to the murder of Pamela Carpenter, Penry had not at that time been “confronted with someone who was essentially an agent for the State whose function was to gather evidence that might be used against him in connection with the crime for which he was incarcerated.” Penry v. State, 903 S.W. 2d 715, 759-760 (1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The court also rejected Penry’s claim that the jury instructions given at his second sentencing hearing were constitutionally inadequate because they did not permit the jury to consider and give effect to his mitigating evidence of mental retardation and childhood abuse. The court cited Penry I for the proposition that when a defendant proffers “mitigating evidence that is not relevant to the special issues or that has relevance to the defendant’s moral culpability beyond the scope of the special issues ... the jury must be given a special instruction in order to allow it to consider and give effect to such evidence.” 903 S.W. 2d, at 765. Quoting the supplemental jury instruction given at Penry’s second trial, see supra, at 789-790, the court overruled Pen-ry’s claim of error. The court stated that “a nullification instruction such as this one is sufficient to meet the constitutional requirements of [Penry I]” 903 S. W. 2d, at 765.
In 1998, after his petition for state habeas corpus relief was denied, see App. 841 (trial court order); id., at 863 (Court of Criminal Appeals order), Penry filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2254 (1994 ed. and Supp. V) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The District Court rejected both of Penry’s claims, finding that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusions on both points were neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. App. 893, 920. After fidl briefing and argument, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. 215 F. 3d 504 (2000).
We stayed Penry’s execution and granted certiorari to consider Penry’s constitutional arguments regarding the admission of the Peebles report and the adequacy of the jury instructions. 531 U.S. 1010 (2000).
II
Because Peary filed his federal habeas petition after the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the provisions of that law govern the scope of our review. Specifically, 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1) (1994 ed., Supp. V) prohibits a federal court from granting an application for a writ of habeas corpus with respect to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless that adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Last Term in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), we explained that the “contrary to” and “unreasonable application” clauses of § 2254(d)(1) have independent meaning. Id., at 404. A state court decision will be “contrary to” our clearly established precedent if the state court either “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our eases,” or “confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from our precedent.” Id., at 405-406. A state court decision will be an “unreasonable application of” our clearly established precedent if it “correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner’s case.” Id., at 407-408.
“[A] federal habeas court making the ‘unreasonable application’ inquiry should ask whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.” Id., at 409. Distinguishing between an unreasonable and an incorrect application of federal law, we clarified that even if the federal habeas court concludes that the state court decision applied clearly established federal law incorrectly, relief is appropriate only if that application is also objectively unreasonable. Id., at 410-411.
Although the District Court evaluated the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ disposition of Penry’s claims under a standard we later rejected in Williams, see App. 882 (stating that an application of law to facts is “unreasonable ‘only when it can be said that reasonable jurists considering the question would be of one view that the state court ruling was incorrect’” (citation omitted)), the Fifth Circuit articulated the proper standard of review, as set forth in § 2254(d)(1) and clarified in Williams, and denied Penry relief. Guided by this same standard, we now turn to the substance of Penry’s claims.
Ill
A
Penry contends that the admission into evidence of the portion of the 1977 Peebles report that referred to Penry’s future dangerousness violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because he was never warned that the statements he made to Dr. Peebles might later be used against him. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed, concluding that when Dr. Peebles interviewed Penry, Peebles was not acting as an agent for the State in order to gather evidence that might be used against Penry. 903 S.W. 2d, at 759.
Penry argues that this case is indistinguishable from Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981). In Estelle, we considered a situation in which a psychiatrist conducted an ostensibly neutral competency examination of a capital defendant, but drew conclusions from the defendant’s un-counseled statements regarding his future dangerousness, and later testified for the prosecution on that crucial issue. We likened the psychiatrist to “an agent of the State recounting unwarned statements made in a postarrest custodial setting,” and held that “[a] criminal defendant, who neither initiates a psychiatric evaluation nor attempts to introduce any psychiatric evidence, may not be compelled to respond to a psychiatrist if his statements can be used against him at a capital sentencing proceeding.” Id., at 467-468. The admission of the psychiatrist’s testimony under those “distinct circumstances” violated the Fifth Amendment. Id., at 466.
This case differs from Estelle in several respects. First, the defendant in Estelle had not placed his mental condition at issue, id., at 457, n. 1, whereas Penry himself made his mental status a central issue in both the 1977 rape case and his trials for Pamela Carpenter’s rape and murder. Second, in Estelle, the trial court had called for the competency evaluation and the State had chosen the examining psychiatrist. Id., at 456-457. Here, however, it was Penr/s own counsel in the 1977 case who requested the psychiatric exam performed by Dr. Peebles. Third, in Estelle, the State had called the psychiatrist to testify as a part of its affirmative case. Id., at 459. Here, it was during the cross-examination of Penr/s own psychological witness that the prosecutor elicited the quotation from the Peebles report. And fourth, in Estelle, the defendant was charged with a capital crime at the time of his competency exam, and it was thus clear that his future dangerousness would be a specific issue at sentencing. Penry, however, had not yet murdered Pamela Carpenter at the time of his interview with Dr. Peebles.
We need not and do not decide whether these differences affeet the merits of Penry’s Fifth Amendment claim. Rather, the question is whether the Texas court’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of our precedent. 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1) (1994 ed., Supp. V). We think it was not. The differences between this case and Estelle are substantial, and our opinion in Estelle suggested that our holding was limited to the "distinct circumstances” presented there. It also indicated that the Fifth Amendment analysis might be different where a defendant “intends to introduce psychiatric evidence at the penalty phase.” 451 U.S., at 472. Indeed, we have never extended Estelle's Fifth Amendment holding beyond its particular facts. Cf., e.g., Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (1987) (Estelle does not apply, and it does not violate the Fifth Amendment, where a prosecutor uses portions of a psychiatric evaluation requested by a defendant to rebut psychiatric evidence presented by the defendant at trial). We therefore cannot say that it was objectively unreasonable for the Texas court to conclude that Penry is not entitled to relief on his Fifth Amendment claim.
Even if our precedent were to establish squarely that the prosecution’s use of the Peebles report violated Penr/s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, that error would justify overturning Penr/s sentence only if Penry could establish that the error “‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946)). We think it unlikely that Penry could make such a showing.
The excerpt from the Peebles report bolstered the State’s argument that Penry posed a future danger, but it was neither the first nor the last opinion the jury heard on that point. Four prison officials testified that they were of the opinion that Penry “would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.” App. 94, 104, 138; 47 Record 970. Three psychiatrists testified that Penry was a dangerous individual and likely to remain so. Two were the State’s own witnesses. See App. 487, 557. The third was Dr. Price — the same defense witness whom the prosecutor had asked to read from the Peebles report. Before that recitation, Dr. Price had stated his own opinion that “[i]f [Penry] was in the free world, I would consider him dangerous.” Id, at 892.
While the Peebles report was an effective rhetorical tool, it was by no means the key to the State’s case on the question whether Penry was likely to commit Mure acts of violence. We therefore have considerable doubt that the admission of the Peebles report, even if erroneous, had a “substantial and injurious effect” on the verdict. Brecht v. Abmhamson, supra, at 637. Accordingly, we will not disturb the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ rejection of Penr/s Fifth Amendment claim.
B
Penry also contends that the jury instructions given at his second sentencing hearing did not comport with our holding in Penry I because they did not provide the jury with a vehicle for expressing its reasoned moral response to the mitigating evidence of Peltry’s mental retardation and childhood abuse. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. The court summarized Penry I as holding that when a defendant proffers “mitigating evidence that is not relevant to the special issues or that has relevance to the defendant’s moral culpability beyond the scope of the special issues . . . the jury must be given a special instruction in order to allow it to consider and give effect to such evidence.” 908 S. W. 2d, at 765. The court then stated that the supplemental jury instruction given at Penry’s second sentencing hearing satisfied that mandate. Ibid.
The Texas court did not make the rationale of its holding entirely clear. On one hand, it might have believed that Penry I was satisfied merely by virtue of the fact that a supplemental instruction had been given. On the other hand, it might have believed that it was the substance of that instruction which satisfied Penry I.
While the latter seems to be more likely, to the extent it was the former, the Texas court clearly misapprehended our prior decision. Penry I did not hold that the mere mention of “mitigating circumstances” to a capital sentencing jury satisfies the Eighth Amendment. Nor does it stand for the proposition that it is constitutionally sufficient to inform the jury that it may “consider” mitigating circumstances in deciding the appropriate sentence. Rather, the key under Penry I is that the jury be able to “consider and give effect to [a defendant’s mitigating] evidence in imposing sentence.” 492 U.S., at 319 (emphasis added). See also Johnson v. Texas, 509 U. S. 350, 381 (1993) (O’CONNOR, J., dissenting) (“[A] sentencer [must] be allowed to give full consideration and full effect to mitigating circumstances” (emphasis in original)). For it is only when the jury is given a “vehicle for expressing its ‘reasoned moral response’ to that evidence in rendering its sentencing decision,” Penry I, 492 U.S., at 328, that we can be sure that the jury “has treated the defendant as a ‘uniquely individual human bein[g]’ and has made a reliable determination that death is the appropriate sentence,” id., at 319 (quoting Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 304, 305 (1976)).
The State contends that the substance of the supplemental instruction satisfied Penry I because it provided the jury with the requisite vehicle for expressing its reasoned moral response to Penry’s particular mitigating evidence. Specifically, the State points to the admittedly “less than artful” portion of the supplemental instruction which says:
“If you find that there are any mitigating circumstances in this case, you must decide how much weight they deserve, if any, and therefore, give effect and consideration to them in assessing the defendant’s personal culpability at the time you answer the special issue. If you determine, when giving effect to the mitigating evidence, if any, that a life sentence, as reflected by a negative finding to the issue under consideration, rather than a death sentence, is an appropriate response to the personal culpability of the defendant, a negative finding should be given to one of the special issues.” App. 675 (emphasis added). See also Brief for Respondent 16.
We see two possible ways to interpret this confusing instruction. First, as the portions italicized above indicate, it can be understood as telling the jurors to take Penry’s mitigating evidence into account in determining their truthful answers to each special issue. Viewed in this light, however, the supplemental instruction placed the jury in no better position than was the jury in Penry I. As we made clear in Penry I, none of the special issues is broad enough to provide a vehicle for the jury to give mitigating effect to the evidence of Penry’s mental retardation and childhood abuse. Cf. 492 U. S., at 322-325. In the words of Judge Dennis below, the jury’s ability to consider and give effect to Penry’s mitigating evidence was still “shackled and confined within the scope of the three special issues.” 215 F. 3d, at 514 (dissenting opinion). Thus, because the supplemental instruction had no practical effect, the jury instructions at Penry’s second sentencing were not meaningfully different from the ones we found constitutionally inadequate in Penry I.
Alternatively, the State urges, it is possible to understand the supplemental instruction as informing the jury that it could “simply answer one of the special issues 'no’ if it believed that mitigating circumstances made a life sentence . . . appropriate . . . regardless of its initial answers to the questions.” Brief for Respondent 16. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals appeared to understand the instruction in this sense, when it termed the supplemental instruction a “nullification instruction.” 903 S. W. 2d, at 765. Even assuming the jurors could have understood the instruetion to operate in this way, the instruction was not as simple to implement as the State contends. Rather, it made the jury charge as a whole internally contradictory, and placed law-abiding jurors in an impossible situation.
The jury was clearly instructed that a “yes” answer to a special issue was appropriate only when supported “by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.” App. 672. A “no” answer was appropriate only when there was “a reasonable doubt as to whether the answer to a Special Issue should be . . . Tes.’ ” Id., at 673. The verdict form listed the three special issues and, with no mention of mitigating circumstances, confirmed and clarified the jury’s two choices with respect to each special issue. The jury could swear that it had unanimously determined “beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to this Special Issue is Tes.’ ” Id., at 676-678. Or it could swear that at least 10 jurors had “a reasonable doubt as to the matter inquired about in this Special Issue” and that the jury thus had “determin[ed] that the answer to this Special Issue is ‘No.’” Ibid, (emphasis added).
In the State’s view, however, the jury was also told that it could ignore these clear guidelines and — even if there was in fact no reasonable doubt as to the matter inquired about— answer any special issue in the negative if the mitigating circumstances warranted a life sentence. In other words, the jury could change one or more truthful “yes” answers to an untruthful “no” answer in order to avoid a death sentence for Penry.
We generally presume that jurors follow their instructions. See, e. g., Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987). Here, however, it would have been both logically and ethically impossible for a juror to follow both sets of instructions. Because Penry’s mitigating evidence did not fit within the scope of the special issues, answering those issues in the manner prescribed on the verdict form necessarily meant ignoring the command of the supplemental instruction. And answering the special issues in the mode prescribed by the supplemental instruction necessarily meant ignoring the verdict form instructions. Indeed, jurors who wanted to answer one of the special issues falsely to give effect to the mitigating evidence would have had to violate their oath to render a “ ‘true verdict.’ ” Tex. Code Crim. Proe. Ann., Art. 35.22 (Vernon 1989).
The mechanism created by the supplemental instruction thus inserted “an element of capriciousness” into the sentencing decision, “making the jurors’ power to avoid the death penalty dependent on their willingness” to elevate the supplemental instruction over the verdict form instructions. Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 335 (1976) (plurality opinion). There is, at the very least, “a reasonable likelihood that the jury ... applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevented] the consideration” of Penr/s mental retardation and childhood abuse. Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 (1990). The supplemental instruction therefore provided an inadequate vehicle for the jury to make a reasoned moral response to Perry’s mitigating evidence.
Even though the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals focused solely on the supplemental instruction in affirming Perry’s sentence, the State urges us to evaluate the instruction contextually, with reference to the comments of the prosecutor and defense counsel, as well as the comments of the court during voir dire. Indeed, we have said that we will approach jury instructions in the same way a jury would — with a “commonsense understanding of the instructions in the light of all that has taken place at the trial.” Id., at 381. Penry I itself illustrates this methodology, as there we evaluated the likely effect on the jury of the comments of the defense counsel and prosecutor. 492 U.S., at 325-326. As we did there, however, we conclude that these comments were insufficient to clarify the confusion caused by the instructions themselves.
Voir dire was a month-long process, during which approximately 90 prospective jurors were interviewed. See 3 Record (index of transcripts). Many of the venire members— including each of the 12 jurors who was eventually empaneled — received a copy of an instruction largely similar to the supplemental instruction ultimately given to the jury. After each juror read the instruction, the judge attempted to explain how it worked. See, e. g., 18 Record 966-967 (“[I]f you thought the mitigating evidence was sufficient . . . you might, even though you really felt those answers [to the three special issues] should be yes, you might answer one or more of them no ... so [Penry] could get the life sentence rather than the death penalty”). The prosecutor then attempted to explain the instruction. See, e. g., id., at 980 (“[E]ven though [you] believe all three of these answers are yes, [you] don’t think the death penalty is appropriate for this particular person because of what has happened to him in the past.... [The] instruction is to give effect to that belief and answer one or all of these issues no”). And with most of the jurors, defense counsel also gave a similar explanation. See, e. g., id., at 1018 (“[I]f you believe[d] [there] was a mitigating circumstance... you [could] apply that mitigation to answer — going back and changing an answer from yes to a no”).
While these comments reinforce the State’s construction of the supplemental instruction, they do not bolster our confidence in the jurors’ ability to give effect to Penry’s mitigating evidence in deciding his sentence. Rather, they highlight the arbitrary way in which the supplemental instruction operated, and the fact that the jury was essentially instructed to return a false answer to a special issue in order to avoid a death sentence.
Moreover, we are skeptical that, by the time their penalty phase deliberations began, the jurors would have remembered the explanations given during voir dire, much less taken them as a binding statement of the law. Voir dire began almost two fall months before the penalty phase deliberations. In the interim, the jurors had observed the rest of voir dire, listened to a 5-day guilt-phase trial and extensive instructions, participated in 2Vz hours of deliberations with respect to Penry’s guilt, and listened to another 5-day trial on punishment. The comments of the court and counsel during voir dire were surely a distant and convoluted memory by the time the jurors began their deliberations on Penry’s sentence.
The State also contends that the closing arguments in the penalty phase clarified matters. Penry’s counsel attempted to describe the jury’s task:
“If, when you thought about mental retardation and the child abuse, you think that this guy deserves a life sentence, and not a death sentence, . . . then, you get to answer one of. . . those questions no. The Judge has not told you which question, and you have to give that answer, even if you decide the literally correct answer is yes. Not the easiest instruction to follow and the law does funny things sometimes.” App. 640.
Again, however, this explanation only reminded the jurors that they had to answer the special issues dishonestly in order to give effect to Penry’s mitigating evidence. For the reasons discussed above, such a “clarification” provided no real help. Moreover, even if we thought that the arguments of defense counsel could be an adequate substitute for statements of the law by the court, but see Boyde v. California, supra, at 384, the prosecutor effectively neutralized defense counsel’s argument, as did the prosecutor in Penry I, by stressing the jury’s duty “[t]o follow your oath, the evidence and the law.” App. 616. At best, the jury received mixed signals.
Our opinion in Penry I provided sufficient guidance as to how the trial court might have drafted the jury charge for Penry’s second sentencing hearing to comply with our mandate. We specifically indicated that our concerns would have been alleviated by a jury instruction defining the term “deliberately” in the first special issue “in a way that would clearly direct the jury to consider fully Penr/s mitigating evidence as it bears on his personal culpability.” 492 U. S., at 328. The trial’court surely could have drafted an instruction to this effect. Indeed, Penry offered two definitions of “deliberately” that the trial court refused to give. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 12,14-15.
A clearly drafted catchall instruction on mitigating evidence also might have complied with Penry I. Texas’ current capital sentencing scheme (revised after Perry’s second trial and sentencing) provides a helpful frame of reference. Texas now requires the jury to decide “[wjhether, taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there is a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence be imposed.” Tex. Code Grim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071(2)(e)(l) (Vernon Supp. 2001). Perry’s counsel, while not conceding the issue, admitted that he “would have a tough time saying that [Penry I] was not complied with under the new Texas procedure.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 16. At the very least, the brevity and clarity of this instruction highlight the confusing nature of the supplemental instruction actually given, and indicate that the trial court had adequate alternatives available to it as it drafted the instructions for Perry’s trial.
Thus, to the extent the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the substance of the jury instructions given at Penry’s second sentencing hearing satisfied our mandate in Penry I, that determination was objectively unreasonable. Cf. Shafer v. South Carolina, ante, at 40, 50 (holding on direct review that the South Carolina Supreme Court "incorrectly limited” our holding in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), because the court had miseharaeterized “how the State’s new [capital sentencing] scheme works”). The three special issues submitted to the jury were identical to the ones we found constitutionally inadequate as applied in Penry I. Although the supplemental instruction made mention of mitigating evidence, the mechanism it purported to create for the jurors to give effect to that evidence was ineffective and illogical. The comments of the court and counsel accomplished little by way of clarification. Any realistic assessment of the manner in which the supplemental instruction operated would therefore lead to the same conclusion we reached in Penry I: "[A] reasonable juror could well have believed that there was no vehicle for expressing the view that Penry did not deserve to be sentenced to death based upon his mitigating evidence,” 492 U.S., at 326.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Another recent development in Texas is the passage of a bill banning the execution of mentally retarded persons. See Babineck, Perry: Death-penalty measure needs analyzing, Dallas Morning News, May 31, 2001, p. 27A. As this opinion'goes to press, Texas Governor Rick Perry is still in the process of deciding whether to sign the bill. Ibid. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the petitioner of the case. The petitioner is the party who petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. This party is variously known as the petitioner or the appellant. Characterize the petitioner as the Court's opinion identifies them.
Identify the petitioner by the label given to the party in the opinion or judgment of the Court except where the Reports title a party as the "United States" or as a named state. Textual identification of parties is typically provided prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. The official syllabus, the summary that appears on the title page of the case, may be consulted as well. In describing the parties, the Court employs terminology that places them in the context of the specific lawsuit in which they are involved. For example, "employer" rather than "business" in a suit by an employee; as a "minority," "female," or "minority female" employee rather than "employee" in a suit alleging discrimination by an employer.
Also note that the Court's characterization of the parties applies whether the petitioner is actually single entity or whether many other persons or legal entities have associated themselves with the lawsuit. That is, the presence of the phrase, et al., following the name of a party does not preclude the Court from characterizing that party as though it were a single entity. Thus, identify a single petitioner, regardless of how many legal entities were actually involved. If a state (or one of its subdivisions) is a party, note only that a state is a party, not the state's name. | Who is the petitioner of the case? | [
"attorney general of the United States, or his office",
"specified state board or department of education",
"city, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit",
"state commission, board, committee, or authority",
"county government or county governmental unit, except school district",
"court or judicial district",
"state department or agency",
"governmental employee or job applicant",
"female governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority female governmental employee or job applicant",
"not listed among agencies in the first Administrative Action variable",
"retired or former governmental employee",
"U.S. House of Representatives",
"interstate compact",
"judge",
"state legislature, house, or committee",
"local governmental unit other than a county, city, town, township, village, or borough",
"governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact",
"state or U.S. supreme court",
"local school district or board of education",
"U.S. Senate",
"U.S. senator",
"foreign nation or instrumentality",
"state or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate of",
"state college or university",
"United States",
"State",
"person accused, indicted, or suspected of crime",
"advertising business or agency",
"agent, fiduciary, trustee, or executor",
"airplane manufacturer, or manufacturer of parts of airplanes",
"airline",
"distributor, importer, or exporter of alcoholic beverages",
"alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked",
"American Medical Association",
"National Railroad Passenger Corp.",
"amusement establishment, or recreational facility",
"arrested person, or pretrial detainee",
"attorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association",
"author, copyright holder",
"bank, savings and loan, credit union, investment company",
"bankrupt person or business, or business in reorganization",
"establishment serving liquor by the glass, or package liquor store",
"water transportation, stevedore",
"bookstore, newsstand, printer, bindery, purveyor or distributor of books or magazines",
"brewery, distillery",
"broker, stock exchange, investment or securities firm",
"construction industry",
"bus or motorized passenger transportation vehicle",
"business, corporation",
"buyer, purchaser",
"cable TV",
"car dealer",
"person convicted of crime",
"tangible property, other than real estate, including contraband",
"chemical company",
"child, children, including adopted or illegitimate",
"religious organization, institution, or person",
"private club or facility",
"coal company or coal mine operator",
"computer business or manufacturer, hardware or software",
"consumer, consumer organization",
"creditor, including institution appearing as such; e.g., a finance company",
"person allegedly criminally insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial",
"defendant",
"debtor",
"real estate developer",
"disabled person or disability benefit claimant",
"distributor",
"person subject to selective service, including conscientious objector",
"drug manufacturer",
"druggist, pharmacist, pharmacy",
"employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of",
"employer-employee trust agreement, employee health and welfare fund, or multi-employer pension plan",
"electric equipment manufacturer",
"electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company",
"eleemosynary institution or person",
"environmental organization",
"employer. If employer's relations with employees are governed by the nature of the employer's business (e.g., railroad, boat), rather than labor law generally, the more specific designation is used in place of Employer.",
"farmer, farm worker, or farm organization",
"father",
"female employee or job applicant",
"female",
"movie, play, pictorial representation, theatrical production, actor, or exhibitor or distributor of",
"fisherman or fishing company",
"food, meat packing, or processing company, stockyard",
"foreign (non-American) nongovernmental entity",
"franchiser",
"franchisee",
"lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization",
"person who guarantees another's obligations",
"handicapped individual, or organization of devoted to",
"health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor",
"heir, or beneficiary, or person so claiming to be",
"hospital, medical center",
"husband, or ex-husband",
"involuntarily committed mental patient",
"Indian, including Indian tribe or nation",
"insurance company, or surety",
"inventor, patent assigner, trademark owner or holder",
"investor",
"injured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related",
"juvenile",
"government contractor",
"holder of a license or permit, or applicant therefor",
"magazine",
"male",
"medical or Medicaid claimant",
"medical supply or manufacturing co.",
"racial or ethnic minority employee or job applicant",
"minority female employee or job applicant",
"manufacturer",
"management, executive officer, or director, of business entity",
"military personnel, or dependent of, including reservist",
"mining company or miner, excluding coal, oil, or pipeline company",
"mother",
"auto manufacturer",
"newspaper, newsletter, journal of opinion, news service",
"radio and television network, except cable tv",
"nonprofit organization or business",
"nonresident",
"nuclear power plant or facility",
"owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels",
"shareholders to whom a tender offer is made",
"tender offer",
"oil company, or natural gas producer",
"elderly person, or organization dedicated to the elderly",
"out of state noncriminal defendant",
"political action committee",
"parent or parents",
"parking lot or service",
"patient of a health professional",
"telephone, telecommunications, or telegraph company",
"physician, MD or DO, dentist, or medical society",
"public interest organization",
"physically injured person, including wrongful death, who is not an employee",
"pipe line company",
"package, luggage, container",
"political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official",
"indigent, needy, welfare recipient",
"indigent defendant",
"private person",
"prisoner, inmate of penal institution",
"professional organization, business, or person",
"probationer, or parolee",
"protester, demonstrator, picketer or pamphleteer (non-employment related), or non-indigent loiterer",
"public utility",
"publisher, publishing company",
"radio station",
"racial or ethnic minority",
"person or organization protesting racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination",
"racial or ethnic minority student or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"realtor",
"journalist, columnist, member of the news media",
"resident",
"restaurant, food vendor",
"retarded person, or mental incompetent",
"retired or former employee",
"railroad",
"private school, college, or university",
"seller or vendor",
"shipper, including importer and exporter",
"shopping center, mall",
"spouse, or former spouse",
"stockholder, shareholder, or bondholder",
"retail business or outlet",
"student, or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"taxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only",
"tenant or lessee",
"theater, studio",
"forest products, lumber, or logging company",
"person traveling or wishing to travel abroad, or overseas travel agent",
"trucking company, or motor carrier",
"television station",
"union member",
"unemployed person or unemployment compensation applicant or claimant",
"union, labor organization, or official of",
"veteran",
"voter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)",
"wholesale trade",
"wife, or ex-wife",
"witness, or person under subpoena",
"network",
"slave",
"slave-owner",
"bank of the united states",
"timber company",
"u.s. job applicants or employees",
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"General Land Office of Commissioners",
"Transportation Security Administration",
"Surface Transportation Board",
"U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.",
"Reconstruction Finance Corp.",
"Department or Secretary of Homeland Security",
"Unidentifiable",
"International Entity"
] | [
28
] | sc |
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
No. 78-80.
Decided October 30, 1978
Per Curiam.
Upon a complaint issued by the National Labor Relations Board and on the basis of a substantial record of evidence before a Hearing Examiner, the Board held that respondent's no-solicitation rule with respect to corridors and the cafeteria of the respondent hospital was overly broad and an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8 (a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a)(1).
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to enforce the Board’s order. 188 U. S. App. D. C. 109, 578 F. 2d 351 (1978). In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals dealt with corridors and the cafeteria separately, assigning different reasons for its holding with respect to each. As to corridors, the court simply concluded that there was no substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that the corridors were not entitled to the same protection accorded other areas devoted essentially to patient care.
The court’s holding with respect to the cafeteria was based, however, on a legal judgment that no valid distinction can be made between a hospital cafeteria and cafeterias and restaurants that operate independently or in department stores. In the latter type of cases, the Board uniformly has held that the presumption in favor of the right to solicit on nonwork time in non work areas, established by Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U. S. 793 (1945), is inapplicable. The Court of Appeals therefore applied the general rule applicable to commercial cafeterias and restaurants to the hospital cafeteria.
In Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U. S. 483 (1978), the Court concluded that the Republic Aviation presumption did apply to a hospital cafeteria maintained and operated primarily for employees and rarely used by patients or their families. The corridors of the hospital serving patients’ rooms, operating and treatment rooms, and other areas used by patients and their families were neither involved nor considered by the Court in Beth Israel.
As the Court’s decision in Beth Israel is relevant to the cafeteria issue in this case, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Beth Israel only on that issue. Insofar as the petition for certiorari seeks review of the corridor issue, the petition is denied.
In the present ease, the Board had applied the Republic Aviation presumption to all areas of the hospital deemed by it not devoted “strictly [to] patient care,” in accord with its decision in St. John’s Hospital and School of Nursing, Inc., 222 N. L. R. B. 1150 (1976). The Board held that the corridors throughout the hospital and the cafeteria were noncare areas. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the respondent of the case. The respondent is the party being sued or tried and is also known as the appellee. Characterize the respondent as the Court's opinion identifies them.
Identify the respondent by the label given to the party in the opinion or judgment of the Court except where the Reports title a party as the "United States" or as a named state. Textual identification of parties is typically provided prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. The official syllabus, the summary that appears on the title page of the case, may be consulted as well. In describing the parties, the Court employs terminology that places them in the context of the specific lawsuit in which they are involved. For example, "employer" rather than "business" in a suit by an employee; as a "minority," "female," or "minority female" employee rather than "employee" in a suit alleging discrimination by an employer.
Also note that the Court's characterization of the parties applies whether the respondent is actually single entitiy or whether many other persons or legal entities have associated themselves with the lawsuit. That is, the presence of the phrase, et al., following the name of a party does not preclude the Court from characterizing that party as though it were a single entity. Thus, identify a single respondent, regardless of how many legal entities were actually involved. If a state (or one of its subdivisions) is a party, note only that a state is a party, not the state's name. | Who is the respondent of the case? | [
"attorney general of the United States, or his office",
"specified state board or department of education",
"city, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit",
"state commission, board, committee, or authority",
"county government or county governmental unit, except school district",
"court or judicial district",
"state department or agency",
"governmental employee or job applicant",
"female governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority female governmental employee or job applicant",
"not listed among agencies in the first Administrative Action variable",
"retired or former governmental employee",
"U.S. House of Representatives",
"interstate compact",
"judge",
"state legislature, house, or committee",
"local governmental unit other than a county, city, town, township, village, or borough",
"governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact",
"state or U.S. supreme court",
"local school district or board of education",
"U.S. Senate",
"U.S. senator",
"foreign nation or instrumentality",
"state or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate of",
"state college or university",
"United States",
"State",
"person accused, indicted, or suspected of crime",
"advertising business or agency",
"agent, fiduciary, trustee, or executor",
"airplane manufacturer, or manufacturer of parts of airplanes",
"airline",
"distributor, importer, or exporter of alcoholic beverages",
"alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked",
"American Medical Association",
"National Railroad Passenger Corp.",
"amusement establishment, or recreational facility",
"arrested person, or pretrial detainee",
"attorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association",
"author, copyright holder",
"bank, savings and loan, credit union, investment company",
"bankrupt person or business, or business in reorganization",
"establishment serving liquor by the glass, or package liquor store",
"water transportation, stevedore",
"bookstore, newsstand, printer, bindery, purveyor or distributor of books or magazines",
"brewery, distillery",
"broker, stock exchange, investment or securities firm",
"construction industry",
"bus or motorized passenger transportation vehicle",
"business, corporation",
"buyer, purchaser",
"cable TV",
"car dealer",
"person convicted of crime",
"tangible property, other than real estate, including contraband",
"chemical company",
"child, children, including adopted or illegitimate",
"religious organization, institution, or person",
"private club or facility",
"coal company or coal mine operator",
"computer business or manufacturer, hardware or software",
"consumer, consumer organization",
"creditor, including institution appearing as such; e.g., a finance company",
"person allegedly criminally insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial",
"defendant",
"debtor",
"real estate developer",
"disabled person or disability benefit claimant",
"distributor",
"person subject to selective service, including conscientious objector",
"drug manufacturer",
"druggist, pharmacist, pharmacy",
"employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of",
"employer-employee trust agreement, employee health and welfare fund, or multi-employer pension plan",
"electric equipment manufacturer",
"electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company",
"eleemosynary institution or person",
"environmental organization",
"employer. If employer's relations with employees are governed by the nature of the employer's business (e.g., railroad, boat), rather than labor law generally, the more specific designation is used in place of Employer.",
"farmer, farm worker, or farm organization",
"father",
"female employee or job applicant",
"female",
"movie, play, pictorial representation, theatrical production, actor, or exhibitor or distributor of",
"fisherman or fishing company",
"food, meat packing, or processing company, stockyard",
"foreign (non-American) nongovernmental entity",
"franchiser",
"franchisee",
"lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization",
"person who guarantees another's obligations",
"handicapped individual, or organization of devoted to",
"health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor",
"heir, or beneficiary, or person so claiming to be",
"hospital, medical center",
"husband, or ex-husband",
"involuntarily committed mental patient",
"Indian, including Indian tribe or nation",
"insurance company, or surety",
"inventor, patent assigner, trademark owner or holder",
"investor",
"injured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related",
"juvenile",
"government contractor",
"holder of a license or permit, or applicant therefor",
"magazine",
"male",
"medical or Medicaid claimant",
"medical supply or manufacturing co.",
"racial or ethnic minority employee or job applicant",
"minority female employee or job applicant",
"manufacturer",
"management, executive officer, or director, of business entity",
"military personnel, or dependent of, including reservist",
"mining company or miner, excluding coal, oil, or pipeline company",
"mother",
"auto manufacturer",
"newspaper, newsletter, journal of opinion, news service",
"radio and television network, except cable tv",
"nonprofit organization or business",
"nonresident",
"nuclear power plant or facility",
"owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels",
"shareholders to whom a tender offer is made",
"tender offer",
"oil company, or natural gas producer",
"elderly person, or organization dedicated to the elderly",
"out of state noncriminal defendant",
"political action committee",
"parent or parents",
"parking lot or service",
"patient of a health professional",
"telephone, telecommunications, or telegraph company",
"physician, MD or DO, dentist, or medical society",
"public interest organization",
"physically injured person, including wrongful death, who is not an employee",
"pipe line company",
"package, luggage, container",
"political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official",
"indigent, needy, welfare recipient",
"indigent defendant",
"private person",
"prisoner, inmate of penal institution",
"professional organization, business, or person",
"probationer, or parolee",
"protester, demonstrator, picketer or pamphleteer (non-employment related), or non-indigent loiterer",
"public utility",
"publisher, publishing company",
"radio station",
"racial or ethnic minority",
"person or organization protesting racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination",
"racial or ethnic minority student or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"realtor",
"journalist, columnist, member of the news media",
"resident",
"restaurant, food vendor",
"retarded person, or mental incompetent",
"retired or former employee",
"railroad",
"private school, college, or university",
"seller or vendor",
"shipper, including importer and exporter",
"shopping center, mall",
"spouse, or former spouse",
"stockholder, shareholder, or bondholder",
"retail business or outlet",
"student, or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"taxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only",
"tenant or lessee",
"theater, studio",
"forest products, lumber, or logging company",
"person traveling or wishing to travel abroad, or overseas travel agent",
"trucking company, or motor carrier",
"television station",
"union member",
"unemployed person or unemployment compensation applicant or claimant",
"union, labor organization, or official of",
"veteran",
"voter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)",
"wholesale trade",
"wife, or ex-wife",
"witness, or person under subpoena",
"network",
"slave",
"slave-owner",
"bank of the united states",
"timber company",
"u.s. job applicants or employees",
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"General Land Office of Commissioners",
"Transportation Security Administration",
"Surface Transportation Board",
"U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.",
"Reconstruction Finance Corp.",
"Department or Secretary of Homeland Security",
"Unidentifiable",
"International Entity"
] | [
95
] | sc |
PROCUNIER, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. ATCHLEY
No. 44.
Argued November 18, 1970
Decided January 19, 1971
Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Douglas, HarlaN, Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ., joined. Black, J., filed a concurring statement, post, p. 454.
Robert R. Granucci, Deputy Attorney General of California, "argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and William D. Stein, Deputy Attorney General.
Charles M Legge argued the cause and filed-a brief for respondent.
Me. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinión of the Court.
In 1959 a jury in. a California trial court found the respondent guilty of murdering his wife by firing six bullets into her body at close range. A key prosecution witness at the trial was Ray Travers,' an insurance, agent. Two days after the respondent’s wife was killed, Travers visited the respondent in jail at the latter’s request, and the two conversed regarding an insurance policy on the life of the decedent. During the course of this conversation the respondent told Travers his version of how his wife had been killed, admitting that, he had lain in wait for her with a gun, but insisting that hér shooting had been accidental. As he was leaving the jail, Travers told the sheriff’s officers about the respondent’s statement. They asked him if he would be willing to have his next conversation with the respondent electronically recorded, and, since he planned to return to get additional information for the insurance company, he agreed. Later the same day Travers returned to the jail and had anothér conversation with the respondent, in the course of which the respondent again gave Travers substantially the same account of the circumstances of his wife’s death. This conversation was recorded. Over the objection of defense counsel, the recording of the second conversation was admitted in evidence at the trial. Travers in detailed testimony verified the authenticity of • the recording, and orally recounted the two conversations he had had with the respondent. The accuracy of the recording and of Travers’ testimony was ' not questioned; indeed, when the respondent took the stand he gave substantially the' same account of how his wife had been killed that he had given to Travers.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of California,, the respondent contended that the second conversation with Travers was an involuntary confession, and that the record of the conversation and Travers’ supporting testimony had, therefore, been wrongly admitted in evidence at the trial. The state'appellate court unanimously rejected this contention and affirmed the conviction. People v. Atchley, 53 Cal. 2d 160, 346 P. 2d 764. Proceeding upon the proposition that “any statement by an accused relative to the offense charged is inadmissible against him if made involuntarily,” Justice Traynor’s opinion for the Supreme Court of California reasoned as follows:
“Travers testified that no threats were made, that no inducements were offered, and that in an earlier conversation defendant had volunteered substantially the same statements without being asked. Defendant at no time contradicted this testimony or suggested that any of his recorded statements were untrue. Moreover, the recorded conversation demonstrates that Travers referred to the insurance policy to explain why he was asking questions and not as an inducement for any particular answers. The trial court listened to the tape in chambers before ruling on its admissibility. There is therefore no merit in defendant’s contention that the recording was admitted without a proper showing that his statements were made voluntarily.
“Defendant also contends that the recording was' obtained by such fraud that its use as evidence was inconsistent with due process. He relies primarily on Leyra v. Denno, 347 U. S. 556. . . . Although there was a similar deception in the present case, there was no comparable mental coercion. The deception itself does not render defendant’s statements inadmissible, for it was not of a type reasonably likely to procure an untrue statement. . . .
“While cross-examining Travers as to the volun-tariness of defendant’s recorded statements, defense counsel attempted to ask whether defendant had complained to Travers of not being permitted by the police, despite numerous requests, to talk to a lawyer. The trial court sustained an objection to this question and explained to the jury that the answer would have' no bearing on the question of volun-tariness. Defendant correctly contends that this ruling was erroneous, but fails to show that it was prejudicial. Although a refusal to permit defendant' to talk to counsel suggests an intent to coerce, it seems highly improbable that either the trial judge or the jury would have inferred coercion from such a refusal alone in the light of the substantial and uncontradicted evidence that no coercion occurred.” 53 Cal. 2d, at 170-171, 346 P. 2d, at 769-770.
This Court granted certiorari. After hearing argument, we disposed of the case as follows:
“After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.”
In 1967 the respondent initiated the present habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the" Northern District of California. He contended that decisions of this Court rendered subsequent to his direct appeal had established that the recording of his conversation with Travers had been unconstitutionally introduced into evidence, and that he was accordingly entitled to a new trial. It was asserted that his statements were involuntary under the criteria stated in Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, because he had been denied access to a lawyer and because he had not been advised of his right to remain silent; and that in any event the procedures used to determine the voluntariness of these statements were constitutionally inadequate .under the criteria stated in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368.
The District Court, although making clear that .it was not “presently able to say thát the confession wa.s involuntary,” nonetheless concluded that the respondent was entitled to relief because the state trial court had “excluded relevant and perhaps crucial evidence on the issue of whether-the confession was voluntary” and thus “did not reliably determine whether Atchley’s confession, was voluntary or involuntary.” 300 F. Supp. 68, 71, 72. The excluded evidence that the District Court thought “relevant and perhaps crucial” had to do with what the police had said to Travers before the recorded interview, whether the respondent had been trying to obtain a lawyer, whether Travers had deceived the respondent about his motives and feigned sympathy, whether the respondent knew that the conversation was being recorded, and, finally, with the respondent’s intellectual and educational qualifications. ' Because inquiry into these matters had been restricted, the federal court held that the-wrong standard of voluntariness had been applied in the state trial proceeding. Accordingly, the District Court ruled ■that the respondent was entitled to a new hearing in the state courts on the issue of voluntariness and, in the event that the statements should be found involuntary, to a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the opinion of the District Court, Judge Barnes dissenting, and we granted certiorari.
In Jackson, the Coürt held that to commit the determination of the voluntariness of a confession solely to the same jury that decided guilt was inconsistent with the constitutional requirement that the .procedures used to determine voluntariness be reliable. Concern for the reliability of the procedures utilized to decide the volun-tariness issue was also reflected in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, where it was held that a state trial court’s resolution of a disputed issue of historical fact , could hot be dispositive in a later federal habeas corpus proceeding unless the petitioner had had a “full and fair hearing” on that issue in the trial court.
But those decisions did not establish that an applicant for federal habeas corpus is entitled to a new hearing on the voluntariness issue, in either the federal or state courts, merely because he can point to shortcomings in the procedures used to decide the issue of voluntariness in the state courts. Our decisions make clear that- he must also show that his version of events, if true, would require the conclusion that his confession was involuntary. Thus in Townsend v. Sain, supra, we did not reach the question whether a hearing was required until we had determined, as a threshold matter, that the application for habeas corpus alleged facts which, if true, would establish that the petitioner had been deprived of constitutional rights by the use of an involuntary confession. 372 U. S., at 309. We said that “the Federal District Court could not conclude that the state trial judge admitted the confession because he disbelieved the evidence which would show that it was involuntary.” Id., at 321. And in Jackson v. Denno, supra, we did not jump -from the premise that the procedures used to determine ■ voluntariness were inadequate, to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to a new hearing. Instead, we pointed out:
“This is not a case where the facts concerning the circumstances surrounding the confession are undisputed and the task is only to judge the voluntariness of the confession based upon the clearly established facts and in accordance with proper constitutional standards. Here there are substantial facts in dispute .... Whether Jackson is entitled to relief depends upon how these facts are resolved, for if the State is to be believed we cannot say that Jackson’s confession was involuntary, whereas if Jackson’s version of the facts is accepted the confession was involuntary and inadmissible.” 378 U. S., at 391-392.
The reason for this approach is obvious. Unless the result of the habeas corpus proceeding turns on disputed issues of historical fact, a rehearing on the issue of the involuntariness of a defendant’s incriminating statement woúld be an exercise in futility, since the applicant for federal habeas, would not be entitled to relief even if his allegations of historical fact should be found to be true. Yet the District Court in this case quite evidently failed to make the threshold determination that the respondent would be entitled to relief if his allegations were believed. Rather the court, disavowing any present ability to say whether the respondent’s statement was involuntary, said only that “the trial court could have more competently determined whether [the respondent’s] will was overborne” had the circumstances surrounding the statement been more fully explored. 300 F. Supp., at 72.
The respondent’s trial took place several years before the decisions of the Court in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378
U. S. 478, and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, and those decisions have not been given retroactive effect. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719. The admissibility of the respondent’s statement as a constitutional matter was governed, therefore, by the contemporary case law elaborating the due process standard of voluntariness. The question was whether the will of the defendant had been overborne so that the statement was not his free and voluntary act, and that question was to be resolved in light of the totality of the circumstances. See, e. g., Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U. S. 737; Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503, 513-516; Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315, 323; Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143, 147-148.
There is no reason to infer that the Supreme Court of California did not apply the correct constitutional criteria in reviewing the issue, and the court quite clearly assumed the truth of the respondent’s version of the historical facts still in dispute, in holding that his statement was not involuntary.
The respondent contended that his confession was involuntary because he had been denied a lawyer, because he had not been advised of his right to remain silent, because he had thought he was giving Travers information that Travers needed to obtain the insurance money, because he had thought that what he told Travers would be held in confidence, because he had not known that his conversation with Travers was being recorded, and because he was lower than average in intelligence and educational attainments. Of these six assertedly coercive factors, three went only to the weight to be given other evidence of actual coercion. Low intelligence, denial of the right to counsel, and failure to advise of the right to remain silent were not in themselves coercive. Rather they were relevant only in establishing a setting in which actual coercion might have been exerted to overcome the will of the suspect. See Darwin v. Connecticut, 391 U. S. 346; Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U. S. 519; Davis v. North Carolina, supra. The circumstance that the conversation was recorded without the respondent's knowledge did not tend to show either actual coercion or a potentially coercive setting. The factual issue whether the respondent thought his statements to Travers would be held in confidence was resolved in. the trial court. Travers testified that he advised the respondent that what he said would havé to be reported to the-. insurance company and that the respondent knew it would be a matter of record. .This testimony was not contradicted, and there was no reason for the . California Supreme Court to disturb the finding, implicit in the trial record, that the respondent had had no reason to believe that Travers would not repeat what he had been told. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 314. The remaining contention was that the respondent’s statement was improperly .induced by the suggestion that Travers needed the information in order to obtain insurance money for Atchley’s children and stepchildren. The California Supreme Court properly found that “the recorded conversation demonstrates that Travers referred to the insurance policy to explain why he was asking questions and not as an inducement for any particular answers.”
It is clear that the California courts gave full consideration to the issue of the voluntariness of the respondent’s statement, and that they applied correct standards of constitutional'law in upholding its admission in evidence. Accordingly, the District Court was in error in requiring a new trial of claims that were long ago. fully, fairly, and correctly determined in the courts of California. .
The judgment is reversed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the judgment and substantially all of the opinion.
No charges had been filed against the respondent at the time of these conversations. Cf. Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201.
362 U. S. 987.
366 U. S. 207.
412 F. 2d 230.
397 U. S. 905.
Congress in 1966 amended 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (see 1964 ed., Supp. V), so as substantially to codify most of the habeas corpus criteria set out in Townsend v. Sain. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence. | What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision? | [
"judicial review (national level)",
"judicial review (state level)",
"Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction",
"statutory construction",
"interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order",
"diversity jurisdiction",
"federal common law"
] | [
2
] | sc |
BERRY v. CITY OF CINCINNATI
No. 73-5245.
Decided November 5, 1973
Per Curiam.
Petitioner, who was serving a sentence for a misdemeanor offense when Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972), was decided, sought relief in the state courts claiming that because Argersinger should be accorded retroactive effect and because his trial and sentencing were uncounseled, his conviction should be invalidated. The Supreme Court of Ohio refused to apply Argersinger to convictions occurring prior to that decision. City of Cincinnati v. Berry, 34 Ohio St. 2d 106, 296 N. E. 2d 532 (1973). Petitioner was enlarged on bail pending action on his claim and faces reincarceration should the judgment of the Ohio courts remain undisturbed. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, and the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is reversed. Those convicted prior to the decision in Argersinger are entitled to the constitutional rule enunciated in that case, Kitchens v. Smith, 401 U. S. 847 (1971); Williams v. United States, 401 U. S. 646, 653 and n. 6 (1971) (opinion of White, J.); Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109, 114 (1967); cf. Adams v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 278 (1972), if they allege and prove a bona fide, existing case or controversy sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court. Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 50-58 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234, 237-238 (1968); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 633-634, n. 2 (1968).
So ordered. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. If the case arose under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, note the source as "United States Supreme Court". If the case arose in a state court, note the source as "State Supreme Court", "State Appellate Court", or "State Trial Court". Do not code the name of the state. | What is the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims"
] | [
157
] | sc |
Lester Gerard PACKINGHAM, Petitioner
v.
NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 15-1194.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Feb. 27, 2017.
Decided June 19, 2017.
David T. Goldberg, for Petitioner.
Robert C. Montgomery, Raleigh, NC, for Respondent.
Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, Office of the Appellate Defender, Durham, NC, David T. Goldberg, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford, CA, for Petitioner.
Josh Stein, Attorney General of North Carolina, John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General of North Carolina, Robert C. Montgomery, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Anne Murray Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for Respondent.
Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 2008, North Carolina enacted a statute making it a felony for a registered sex offender to gain access to a number of websites, including commonplace social media websites like Facebook and Twitter. The question presented is whether that law is permissible under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, applicable to the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I
A
North Carolina law makes it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages." N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 14-202.5(a), (e) (2015). A "commercial social networking Web site" is defined as a website that meets four criteria. First, it "[i]s operated by a person who derives revenue from membership fees, advertising, or other sources related to the operation of the Web site." § 14-202.5(b). Second, it "[f]acilitates the social introduction between two or more persons for the purposes of friendship, meeting other persons, or information exchanges." Ibid. Third, it "[a]llows users to create Web pages or personal profiles that contain information such as the name or nickname of the user, photographs placed on the personal Web page by the user, other personal information about the user, and links to other personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site of friends or associates of the user that may be accessed by other users or visitors to the Web site." Ibid. And fourth, it "[p]rovides users or visitors ... mechanisms to communicate with other users, such as a message board, chat room, electronic mail, or instant messenger." Ibid.
The statute includes two express exemptions. The statutory bar does not extend to websites that "[p]rovid[e] only one of the following discrete services: photo-sharing, electronic mail, instant messenger, or chat room or message board platform." § 14-202.5(c)(1). The law also does not encompass websites that have as their "primary purpose the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services between [their] members or visitors." § 14-202.5(c)(2).
According to sources cited to the Court, § 14-202.5 applies to about 20,000 people in North Carolina and the State has prosecuted over 1,000 people for violating it. Brief for Petitioner 6-8.
B
In 2002, petitioner Lester Gerard Packingham-then a 21-year-old college student-had sex with a 13-year-old girl. He pleaded guilty to taking indecent liberties with a child. Because this crime qualifies as "an offense against a minor," petitioner was required to register as a sex offender-a status that can endure for 30 years or more. See § 14-208.6A; see § 14-208.7(a). As a registered sex offender, petitioner was barred under § 14-202.5 from gaining access to commercial social networking sites.
In 2010, a state court dismissed a traffic ticket against petitioner. In response, he logged on to Facebook.com and posted the following statement on his personal profile:
"Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismissed the ticket before court even started? No fine, no court cost, no nothing spent...... Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!" App. 136.
At the time, a member of the Durham Police Department was investigating registered sex offenders who were thought to be violating § 14-202.5. The officer noticed that a " 'J.R. Gerrard' " had posted the statement quoted above. 368 N.C. 380, 381, 777 S.E.2d 738, 742 (2015). By checking court records, the officer discovered that a traffic citation for petitioner had been dismissed around the time of the post. Evidence obtained by search warrant confirmed the officer's suspicions that petitioner was J.R. Gerrard.
Petitioner was indicted by a grand jury for violating § 14-202.5. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the charge against him violated the First Amendment. Petitioner was ultimately convicted and given a suspended prison sentence. At no point during trial or sentencing did the State allege that petitioner contacted a minor-or committed any other illicit act-on the Internet.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. That court struck down § 14-202.5 on First Amendment grounds, explaining that the law is not narrowly tailored to serve the State's legitimate interest in protecting minors from sexual abuse. 229 N.C.App. 293, 304, 748 S.E.2d 146, 154 (2013). Rather, the law "arbitrarily burdens all registered sex offenders by preventing a wide range of communication and expressive activity unrelated to achieving its purported goal." Ibid. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the law is "constitutional in all respects." 368 N.C., at 381, 777 S.E.2d, at 741. Among other things, the court explained that the law is "carefully tailored ... to prohibit registered sex offenders from accessing only those Web sites that allow them the opportunity to gather information about minors." Id., at 389, 777 S.E.2d, at 747. The court also held that the law leaves open adequate alternative means of communication because it permits petitioner to gain access to websites that the court believed perform the "same or similar" functions as social media, such as the Paula Deen Network and the website for the local NBC affiliate. Id., at 390, 777 S.E.2d, at 747. Two justices dissented. They stated that the law impermissibly "creates a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth and extends well beyond the evils the State seeks to combat." Id., at 401, 777 S.E.2d, at 754 (opinion of Hudson, J.) (alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court granted certiorari, 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 368, 196 L.Ed.2d 283 (2016), and now reverses.
II
A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. The Court has sought to protect the right to speak in this spatial context. A basic rule, for example, is that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 796, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989). Even in the modern era, these places are still essential venues for public gatherings to celebrate some views, to protest others, or simply to learn and inquire.
While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace-the "vast democratic forums of the Internet" in general, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 868, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and social media in particular. Seven in ten American adults use at least one Internet social networking service. Brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae 5-6. One of the most popular of these sites is Facebook, the site used by petitioner leading to his conviction in this case. According to sources cited to the Court in this case, Facebook has 1.79 billion active users. Id., at 6. This is about three times the population of North America.
Social media offers "relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds." Reno, supra, at 870, 117 S.Ct. 2329. On Facebook, for example, users can debate religion and politics with their friends and neighbors or share vacation photos. On LinkedIn, users can look for work, advertise for employees, or review tips on entrepreneurship. And on Twitter, users can petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner. Indeed, Governors in all 50 States and almost every Member of Congress have set up accounts for this purpose. See Brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation 15-16. In short, social media users employ these websites to engage in a wide array of protected First Amendment activity on topics "as diverse as human thought." Reno, supra, at 870, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The nature of a revolution in thought can be that, in its early stages, even its participants may be unaware of it. And when awareness comes, they still may be unable to know or foresee where its changes lead. Cf. D. Hawke, Benjamin Rush: Revolutionary Gadfly 341 (1971) (quoting Rush as observing: " 'The American war is over; but this is far from being the case with the American revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the great drama is closed' "). So too here. While we now may be coming to the realization that the Cyber Age is a revolution of historic proportions, we cannot appreciate yet its full dimensions and vast potential to alter how we think, express ourselves, and define who we want to be. The forces and directions of the Internet are so new, so protean, and so far reaching that courts must be conscious that what they say today might be obsolete tomorrow.
This case is one of the first this Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet. As a result, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that medium.
III
This background informs the analysis of the North Carolina statute at issue. Even making the assumption that the statute is content neutral and thus subject to intermediate scrutiny, the provision cannot stand. In order to survive intermediate scrutiny, a law must be "narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest." McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2518, 2534, 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the law must not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2535 (internal quotation marks omitted).
For centuries now, inventions heralded as advances in human progress have been exploited by the criminal mind. New technologies, all too soon, can become instruments used to commit serious crimes. The railroad is one example, see M. Crichton, The Great Train Robbery, p. xv (1975), and the telephone another, see 18 U.S.C. § 1343. So it will be with the Internet and social media.
There is also no doubt that, as this Court has recognized, "[t]he sexual abuse of a child is a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people." Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 244, 122 S.Ct. 1389, 152 L.Ed.2d 403 (2002). And it is clear that a legislature "may pass valid laws to protect children" and other victims of sexual assault "from abuse." See id., at 245, 122 S.Ct. 1389 ; accord, New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 757, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982). The government, of course, need not simply stand by and allow these evils to occur. But the assertion of a valid governmental interest "cannot, in every context, be insulated from all constitutional protections." Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 563, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969).
It is necessary to make two assumptions to resolve this case. First, given the broad wording of the North Carolina statute at issue, it might well bar access not only to commonplace social media websites but also to websites as varied as Amazon.com, Washingtonpost.com, and Webmd.com. See post, at 1741 - 1743; see also Brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation 24-27; Brief for Cato Institute et al. as Amici Curiae 10-12, and n. 6. The Court need not decide the precise scope of the statute. It is enough to assume that the law applies (as the State concedes it does) to social networking sites "as commonly understood"-that is, websites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. See Brief for Respondent 54; Tr. of Oral Arg. 27.
Second, this opinion should not be interpreted as barring a State from enacting more specific laws than the one at issue. Specific criminal acts are not protected speech even if speech is the means for their commission. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-449, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) ( per curiam ). Though the issue is not before the Court, it can be assumed that the First Amendment permits a State to enact specific, narrowly tailored laws that prohibit a sex offender from engaging in conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor. Cf. Brief for Respondent 42-43. Specific laws of that type must be the State's first resort to ward off the serious harm that sexual crimes inflict. (Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court.)
Even with these assumptions about the scope of the law and the State's interest, the statute here enacts a prohibition unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens. Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another about it on any subject that might come to mind. Supra, at 1735 - 1736. By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to "become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." Reno, 521 U.S., at 870, 117 S.Ct. 2329.
In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. Even convicted criminals-and in some instances especially convicted criminals-might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.
IV
The primary response from the State is that the law must be this broad to serve its preventative purpose of keeping convicted sex offenders away from vulnerable victims. The State has not, however, met its burden to show that this sweeping law is necessary or legitimate to serve that purpose. See McCullen, 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2540.
It is instructive that no case or holding of this Court has approved of a statute as broad in its reach. The closest analogy that the State has cited is Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 112 S.Ct. 1846, 119 L.Ed.2d 5 (1992). There, the Court upheld a prohibition on campaigning within 100 feet of a polling place. That case gives little or no support to the State. The law in Burson was a limited restriction that, in a context consistent with constitutional tradition, was enacted to protect another fundamental right-the right to vote. The restrictions there were far less onerous than those the State seeks to impose here. The law in Burson meant only that the last few seconds before voters entered a polling place were "their own, as free from interference as possible." Id., at 210, 112 S.Ct. 1846. And the Court noted that, were the buffer zone larger than 100 feet, it "could effectively become an impermissible burden" under the First Amendment. Ibid.
The better analogy to this case is Board of Airport Comm'rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 107 S.Ct. 2568, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987), where the Court struck down an ordinance prohibiting any "First Amendment activities" at Los Angeles International Airport because the ordinance covered all manner of protected, nondisruptive behavior including "talking and reading, or the wearing of campaign buttons or symbolic clothing," id., at 571, 575, 107 S.Ct. 2568. If a law prohibiting "all protected expression" at a single airport is not constitutional, id., at 574, 107 S.Ct. 2568 (emphasis deleted), it follows with even greater force that the State may not enact this complete bar to the exercise of First Amendment rights on websites integral to the fabric of our modern society and culture.
* * *
It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government "may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech." Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S., at 255, 122 S.Ct. 1389. That is what North Carolina has done here. Its law must be held invalid.
The judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justice ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Justice THOMAS join, concurring in the judgment.
The North Carolina statute at issue in this case was enacted to serve an interest of "surpassing importance." New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 757, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982) -but it has a staggering reach. It makes it a felony for a registered sex offender simply to visit a vast array of websites, including many that appear to provide no realistic opportunity for communications that could facilitate the abuse of children. Because of the law's extraordinary breadth, I agree with the Court that it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
I cannot join the opinion of the Court, however, because of its undisciplined dicta. The Court is unable to resist musings that seem to equate the entirety of the internet with public streets and parks. Ante, at 1735 - 1736. And this language is bound to be interpreted by some to mean that the States are largely powerless to restrict even the most dangerous sexual predators from visiting any internet sites, including, for example, teenage dating sites and sites designed to permit minors to discuss personal problems with their peers. I am troubled by the implications of the Court's unnecessary rhetoric.
I
A
The North Carolina law at issue makes it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages." N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 14-202.5(a), (e) (2015). And as I will explain, the statutory definition of a "commercial social networking Web site" is very broad.
Packingham and the State debate the analytical framework that governs this case. The State argues that the law in question is content neutral and merely regulates a "place" (i.e., the internet) where convicted sex offenders may wish to engage in speech. See Brief for Respondent 20-25. Therefore, according to the State, the standard applicable to "time, place, or manner" restrictions should apply. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989). Packingham responds that the challenged statute is "unlike any law this Court has considered as a time, place, or manner restriction," Brief for Petitioner 37, and he advocates a more demanding standard of review, id., at 37-39.
Like the Court, I find it unnecessary to resolve this dispute because the law in question cannot satisfy the standard applicable to a content-neutral regulation of the place where speech may occur.
B
A content-neutral "time, place, or manner" restriction must serve a "legitimate" government interest, Ward, supra, at 798, 109 S.Ct. 2746 and the North Carolina law easily satisfies this requirement. As we have frequently noted, "[t]he prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children constitutes a government objective of surpassing importance." Ferber, supra, at 757, 102 S.Ct. 3348. "Sex offenders are a serious threat," and "the victims of sexual assault are most often juveniles." McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 32, 122 S.Ct. 2017, 153 L.Ed.2d 47 (2002) (plurality opinion); see Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 4, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 155 L.Ed.2d 98 (2003). "[T]he ... interest [of] safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor ... is a compelling one," Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, County of Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596, 607, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982), and "we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected rights," Ferber, supra, at 757, 102 S.Ct. 3348.
Repeat sex offenders pose an especially grave risk to children. "When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault." McKune, supra, at 33, 122 S.Ct. 2017 (plurality opinion); see United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 133 S.Ct. 2496, 2503-2504, 186 L.Ed.2d 540 (2013).
The State's interest in protecting children from recidivist sex offenders plainly applies to internet use. Several factors make the internet a powerful tool for the would-be child abuser. First, children often use the internet in a way that gives offenders easy access to their personal information-by, for example, communicating with strangers and allowing sites to disclose their location. Second, the internet provides previously unavailable ways of communicating with, stalking, and ultimately abusing children. An abuser can create a false profile that misrepresents the abuser's age and gender. The abuser can lure the minor into engaging in sexual conversations, sending explicit photos, or even meeting in person. And an abuser can use a child's location posts on the internet to determine the pattern of the child's day-to-day activities-and even the child's location at a given moment. Such uses of the internet are already well documented, both in research and in reported decisions.
Because protecting children from abuse is a compelling state interest and sex offenders can (and do) use the internet to engage in such abuse, it is legitimate and entirely reasonable for States to try to stop abuse from occurring before it happens.
C
1
It is not enough, however, that the law before us is designed to serve a compelling state interest; it also must not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests." Ward, 491 U.S., at 798-799, 109 S.Ct. 2746 ; see also McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct. 2518, 2535, 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014). The North Carolina law fails this requirement.
A straightforward reading of the text of N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-202.5 compels the conclusion that it prohibits sex offenders from accessing an enormous number of websites. The law defines a "commercial social networking Web site" as one with four characteristics. First, the website must be "operated by a person who derives revenue from membership fees, advertising, or other sources related to the operation of the Web site." § 14-202.5(b)(1). Due to the prevalence of advertising on websites of all types, this requirement does little to limit the statute's reach.
Second, the website must "[f]acilitat[e] the social introduction between two or more persons for the purposes of friendship, meeting other persons, or information exchanges." § 14-202.5(b)(2). The term "social introduction" easily encompasses any casual exchange, and the term "information exchanges" seems to apply to any site that provides an opportunity for a visitor to post a statement or comment that may be read by other visitors. Today, a great many websites include this feature.
Third, a website must "[a]llo[w] users to create Web pages or personal profiles that contain information such as the name or nickname of the user, photographs placed on the personal Web page by the user, other personal information about the user, and links to other personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site of friends or associates of the user that may be accessed by other users or visitors to the Web site." § 14-202.5(b)(3) (emphasis added). This definition covers websites that allow users to create anything that can be called a "personal profile," i.e., a short description of the user. Contrary to the argument of the State, Brief for Respondent 26-27, everything that follows the phrase "such as" is an illustration of features that a covered website or personal profile may (but need not) include.
Fourth, in order to fit within the statute, a website must "[p]rovid[e] users or visitors ... mechanisms to communicate with other users, such as a message board, chat room, electronic mail, or instant messenger." § 14-202.5(b)(4) (emphasis added). This requirement seems to demand no more than that a website allow back-and-forth comments between users. And since a comment function is undoubtedly a "mechanis[m] to communicate with other users," ibid., it appears to follow that any website with such a function satisfies this requirement.
2
The fatal problem for § 14-202.5 is that its wide sweep precludes access to a large number of websites that are most unlikely to facilitate the commission of a sex crime against a child. A handful of examples illustrates this point.
Take, for example, the popular retail website Amazon.com, which allows minors to use its services and meets all four requirements of § 14-202.5' s definition of a commercial social networking website. First, as a seller of products, Amazon unquestionably derives revenue from the operation of its website. Second, the Amazon site facilitates the social introduction of people for the purpose of information exchanges. When someone purchases a product on Amazon, the purchaser can review the product and upload photographs, and other buyers can then respond to the review. This information exchange about products that Amazon sells undoubtedly fits within the definition in § 14-202.5. It is the equivalent of passengers on a bus comparing notes about products they have purchased. Third, Amazon allows a user to create a personal profile, which is then associated with the product reviews that the user uploads. Such a profile can contain an assortment of information, including the user's name, e-mail address, and picture. And fourth, given its back-and-forth comment function, Amazon satisfies the final statutory requirement.
Many news websites are also covered by this definition. For example, the Washington Post's website gives minors access and satisfies the four elements that define a commercial social networking website. The website (1) derives revenue from ads and (2) facilitates social introductions for the purpose of information exchanges. Users of the site can comment on articles, reply to other users' comments, and recommend another user's comment. Users can also (3) create personal profiles that include a name or nickname and a photograph. The photograph and name will then appear next to every comment the user leaves on an article. Finally (4), the back-and-forth comment section is a mechanism for users to communicate among themselves. The site thus falls within § 14-202.5 and is accordingly off limits for registered sex offenders in North Carolina.
Or consider WebMD-a website that contains health-related resources, from tools that help users find a doctor to information on preventative care and the symptoms associated with particular medical problems. WebMD, too, allows children on the site. And it exhibits the four hallmarks of a "commercial social networking" website. It obtains revenue from advertisements. It facilitates information exchanges-via message boards that allow users to engage in public discussion of an assortment of health issues. It allows users to create basic profile pages: Users can upload a picture and some basic information about themselves, and other users can see their aggregated comments and "likes." WebMD also provides message boards, which are specifically mentioned in the statute as a "mechanis[m] to communicate with other users." N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-202.5(b)(4).
As these examples illustrate, the North Carolina law has a very broad reach and covers websites that are ill suited for use in stalking or abusing children. The focus of the discussion on these sites-shopping, news, health-does not provide a convenient jumping off point for conversations that may lead to abuse. In addition, the social exchanges facilitated by these websites occur in the open, and this reduces the possibility of a child being secretly lured into an abusive situation. These websites also give sex offenders little opportunity to gather personal details about a child; the information that can be listed in a profile is limited, and the profiles are brief. What is more, none of these websites make it easy to determine a child's precise location at a given moment. For example, they do not permit photo streams (at most, a child could upload a single profile photograph), and they do not include up-to-the minute location services. Such websites would provide essentially no aid to a would-be child abuser.
Placing this set of websites categorically off limits from registered sex offenders prohibits them from receiving or engaging in speech that the First Amendment protects and does not appreciably advance the State's goal of protecting children from recidivist sex offenders. I am therefore compelled to conclude that, while the law before us addresses a critical problem, it sweeps far too broadly to satisfy the demands of the Free Speech Clause.
II
While I thus agree with the Court that the particular law at issue in this case violates the First Amendment, I am troubled by the Court's loose rhetoric. After noting that "a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights," the Court states that "cyberspace" and "social media in particular" are now "the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views." Ante, at 1735. The Court declines to explain what this means with respect to free speech law, and the Court holds no more than that the North Carolina law fails the test for content-neutral "time, place, and manner" restrictions. But if the entirety of the internet or even just "social media" sites are the 21st century equivalent of public streets and parks, then States may have little ability to restrict the sites that may be visited by even the most dangerous sex offenders. May a State preclude an adult previously convicted of molesting children from visiting a dating site for teenagers? Or a site where minors communicate with each other about personal problems? The Court should be more attentive to the implications of its rhetoric for, contrary to the Court's suggestion, there are important differences between cyberspace and the physical world.
I will mention a few that are relevant to internet use by sex offenders. First, it is easier for parents to monitor the physical locations that their children visit and the individuals with whom they speak in person than it is to monitor their internet use. Second, if a sex offender is seen approaching children or loitering in a place frequented by children, this conduct may be observed by parents, teachers, or others. Third, the internet offers an unprecedented degree of anonymity and easily permits a would-be molester to assume a false identity.
The Court is correct that we should be cautious in applying our free speech precedents to the internet. Ante, at 1736. Cyberspace is different from the physical world, and if it is true, as the Court believes, that "we cannot appreciate yet" the "full dimensions and vast potential" of "the Cyber Age," ibid., we should proceed circumspectly, taking one step at a time. It is regrettable that the Court has not heeded its own admonition of caution.
See Pew Research Center, Teens, Social Media, and Privacy 5 (May 21, 2013), http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2013/05/PIP_TeensSocialMediaandPrivacy_PDF.pdf (all internet materials as last visited June 16, 2017); J. Wolak, K. Mitchell, & D. Finkelhor, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later 7 (2006) (prepared by Univ. of N.H., Crimes Against Children Research Center), http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV138.pdf.
See id., at 2-3; Wolak, Finkelhor, Mitchell, & Ybarra, Online "Predators" and Their Victims, 63 Am. Psychologist 111, 112 (Feb.-Mar. 2008).
For example, in State v. Gallo, 275 Or.App. 868, 869, 365 P.3d 1154, 1154-1155 (2015), a 32-year-old defendant posing as a 15-year-old boy used a social networking site to contact and befriend a 16-year-old autistic girl. "He then arranged to meet the victim, took her to a park, and sexually abused her." Ibid., 365 P.3d, at 1155. In United States v. Steele, 664 Fed.Appx. 260, 261 (C.A.3 2016), the defendant "began interacting with a minor [victim] on the gay social networking cell phone application 'Jack'd.' " He eventually met the 14-year-old victim and sexually abused him. Ibid. Sadly, these cases are not unique. See, e.g., Himko v. English, 2016 WL 7645584, *1 (N.D.Fla., Dec. 5, 2016) (a convicted rapist and registered sex offender "contacted a sixteen-year-old girl using ... Facebook" and then exchanged explicit text messages and photographs with her), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 54246 (Jan. 4, 2017) ; Roberts v. United States, 2015 WL 7424858, *2-*3 (S.D.Ohio, Nov. 23, 2015) (the defendant "met a then 14-year-old child online via a social networking website called vampirefreaks.com" and then enticed the child to his home and "coerced the child to perform oral sex on him"), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 112647 (Jan. 8, 2016), certificate of appealability denied, No. 16-3050 (CA6 June 15, 2016); State v. Murphy, 2016-0901, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/28/16), 206 So.3d 219, 224 (a defendant "initiated conversations" with his 12-year-old victim "on a social network chat site called 'Kik' " and later sent sexually graphic photographs of himself to the victim and received sexually graphic photos from her).
See New Oxford American Dictionary 1394 (3d ed. 2010); Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1811 (2002); 12 Oxford English Dictionary 576 (2d ed. 1989).
See Amazon, Conditions of Use (June 21, 2016), https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=help_search_1-2?ie=UTF8&nodeId=201909000&qid=1490898710&sr=1-2.
See Amazon, About Customer Reviews, https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_left_v4_sib?ie=UTF8&nodeId=201967050; Amazon, About Public Activity, https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_left_v4_sib?ie=UTF8&nodeId=202076150.
See Amazon, About Your Profile, https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_left_v4_sib?ie=UTF8&nodeId=202076210; Amazon, About Public Information, https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=help_search_1-2?ie=UTF8&nodeId=202076170&qid=1490835739&sr=1-2.
Amazon does not appear to fall within the statute's exemption for websites that have as their "primary purpose the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services between its members or visitors." § 14-202.5(c)(2). Amazon's primary purpose seems to be the facilitation of commercial transactions between its users and itself.
See Washington Post, Terms of Service (July 1, 2014), https://www.washingtonpost.com/terms-of-service/2011/11/18/gIQAldiYiN_story.html?utm_term=.9be5851f95.
See Washington Post, Ad choices (Nov. 21, 2011), https://www.washingtonpost.com/how-can-i-opt-out-of-online-advertising-cookies/2011/11/18/gIQABECbiN_story.html?utm_term=3da1f56d67e7; Washington Post, Privacy Policy (May 2, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/privacy-policy/2011/11/18/gIQASIiaiN_story.html?utm_term=.8252a76f8df2.
See WebMD, Terms and Conditions of Use (Nov. 2, 2016), https://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/about-terms-and-conditions-of-use.
WebMD, Advertising Policy (June 9, 2016), http://www.webmd.com/ about-webmd-policies/about-advertising-policy.
WebMD, Message Board Overview (Sept. 22, 2016), http://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/about-community-overview.
See WebMD, Change Your Profile Settings (Feb. 19, 2014), http://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/profile.
I express no view on whether a law that does not reach the sort of sites discussed above would satisfy the First Amendment. Until such a law is before us, it is premature to address that question.
As the law at issue here shows, it is not easy to provide a precise definition of a "social media" site, and the Court makes no effort to do so. Thus, the scope of its dicta is obscure. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York. | What is the court in which the case originated? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims",
"United States Supreme Court"
] | [
158
] | sc |
GARNER v. UNITED STATES
No. 74-100.
Argued November 4, 1975
Decided March 23, 1976
Powell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Stewart, White, Blackmun, and Rehnquist, JJ., joined. Marshall, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Brennan, J., joined, post, p. 666. Stevens, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Burton Marks argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Jonathan K. Oolden.
Deputy Solicitor General Jones argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Thorn-burgh, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, Jerome M. Feit, and Frederick W. Bead III.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves a nontax criminal prosecution in which the Government introduced petitioner’s income tax returns to prove the offense against him. The question is whether the introduction of this evidence, over petitioner’s Fifth Amendment objection, violated the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination when petitioner made the incriminating disclosures on his returns instead of then claiming the privilege.
I
Petitioner, Roy Garner, was indicted for a conspiracy involving the use of interstate transportation and communication facilities to “fix” sporting contests, to transmit bets and information assisting in the placing of bets, and to distribute the resultant illegal proceeds. 18 U. S. C. §§371, 224, 1084, 1952. The Government’s case was that conspirators bet on horse races either having fixed them or while in possession of other information unavailable to the general public. Garner’s role in this scheme was the furnishing of inside information. The case against him included the testimony of other conspirators and telephone toll records that showed calls from Garner to other conspirators before various bets were placed.
The Government also introduced, over Garner’s Fifth Amendment objection, the Form 1040 income tax returns that Garner had filed for 1965, 1966, and 1967. In the 1965 return Garner had reported his occupation as “professional gambler,” and in each return he reported substantial income from “gambling” or “wagering.” The prosecution relied on Garner’s familiarity with “the business of wagering and gambling,” as reflected in his returns, to help rebut his claim that his relationships with other conspirators were innocent ones.
The jury returned a guilty verdict. Garner appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, contending that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination entitled him to exclude the tax returns despite his failure to claim the privilege on the returns instead of making disclosures. Sitting en banc the Court of Appeals held that Garner’s failure to assert the privilege on his returns defeated his Fifth Amendment claim. 501 F. 2d 236. We agree.
II
In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U. S. 259 (1927), the Court held that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is not a defense to prosecution for failing to file a return at all. But the Court indicated that the privilege could be claimed against specific disclosures sought on a return, saying:
“If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all.” Id., at 263.
Had Garner invoked the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination on his tax returns in lieu of supplying the information used against him, the Internal Revenue Service could have proceeded in either or both of two ways. First, the Service could have sought to have Garner criminally prosecuted under § 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Code), 26 U. S. C. § 7203, which proscribes, among other things, the willful failure to make a return. Second, the Service could have sought to complete Garner’s returns administratively “from [its] own knowledge and from such information as [it could] obtain through testimony or otherwise.” 26 U. S. C. § 6020 (b)(1). Section 7602 (2) of the Code authorizes the Service in such circumstances to summon the taxpayer to appear and to produce records or give testimony. 26 U. S. C. § 7602 (2). If Garner had persisted in his claim when summoned, the Service could have sued for enforcement in district court, subjecting Garner to the threat of the court’s contempt power. 26 U. S. C. § 7604.
Given Sullivan, it cannot fairly be said that taxpayers are “volunteers” when they file their tax returns. The Government compels the filing of a return much as it compels, for example, the appearance of a “witness” before a grand jury. The availability to the Service of § 7203 prosecutions and the summons procedure also induces taxpayers to disclose unprivileged information on their returns. The question, however, is whether the Government can be said to have compelled Garner to incriminate himself with regard to specific disclosures made on his return when he could have claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege instead.
Ill
We start from the fundamental proposition:
“[A] witness protected by the privilege may rightfully refuse to answer unless and until he is protected at least against the use of his compelled answers and evidence derived therefrom in any subsequent criminal case in which he is a defendant. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441 (1972). Absent such protection, if he is nevertheless compelled to answer, his answers are inadmissible against him in a later criminal prosecution. Bram v. United States, [168 U. S. 532 (1897)]; Boyd v. United States, [116 U. S. 616 (1886)].” Lefkowitz v. Tur-ley, 414 U. S. 70, 78 (1973).
See Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 57 n. 6 (1964).
Because the privilege protects against the use of compelled statements as well as guarantees the right to remain silent absent immunity, the inquiry in a Fifth Amendment case is not ended when an incriminating statement is made in lieu of a claim of privilege. Nor, however, is failure to claim the privilege irrelevant.
The Court has held that an individual under compulsion to make disclosures as a witness who revealed information instead of claiming the privilege lost the benefit of the privilege. United States v. Kordel, 397 U. S. 1, 7-10 (1970). Although Kordel appears to be the only square holding to this effect, the Court frequently has recognized the principle in dictum. Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S. 449, 466 (1975); Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367, 370-371 (1951); Smith v. United States, 337 U. S. 137, 150 (1949); United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424, 427 (1943); Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103, 112-113 (1927). These decisions stand for the proposition that, in the ordinary case, if a witness under compulsion to testify makes disclosures instead of claiming the privilege, the government has not “compelled” him to incriminate himself.
“The Amendment speaks of compulsion. It does not preclude a witness from testifying voluntarily in matters which may incriminate him. If, therefore, he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the Amendment.” United States v. Monia, supra, at 427 (footnote omitted).
In their insistence upon a claim of privilege, Kordel and the older witness cases reflect an appropriate accommodation of the Fifth Amendment privilege and the generally applicable principle that governments have the right to everyone’s testimony. Mason v. United States, 244 U. S. 362, 364-365 (1917); see, e. g., Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 688 (1972); Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 443-445 (1972). Despite its cherished position, the Fifth Amendment addresses only a relatively narrow scope of inquiries. Unless the government seeks testimony that will subject its giver to criminal liability, the constitutional right to remain silent absent immunity does not arise. An individual therefore properly may be compelled to give testimony, for example, in a noncriminal investigation of himself. See, e. g., Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273, 278 (1968). Unless a witness objects, a government ordinarily may assume that its compulsory processes are not eliciting testimony that he deems to be incriminating. Only the witness knows whether the apparently innocent disclosure sought may incriminate him, and the burden appropriately lies with him to make a timely assertion of the privilege. If, instead, he discloses the information sought, any incriminations properly are viewed as not compelled.
In addition, the rule that a witness must claim the privilege is consistent with the fundamental purpose of the Fifth Amendment — the preservation of an adversary system of criminal justice. See Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 415 (1966). That system is undermined when a government deliberately seeks to avoid the burdens of independent investigation by compelling self-incriminating disclosures. In areas where a government cannot be said to be compelling such information, however, there is no such circumvention of the constitutionally mandated policy of adversary criminal proceedings. Cf. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 562-565 (1892); California v. Byers, 402 U. S. 424, 456-458 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment).
IV
The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a “witness,” as that term is used herein. Since Garner disclosed information on his returns instead of objecting, his Fifth Amendment claim would be defeated by an application of the general requirement that witnesses must claim the privilege. Garner, however, resists the application of that requirement, arguing that incriminating disclosures made in lieu of objection are “compelled” in the tax-return context. He relies spe-fically on three situations in which incriminatory disclosures have been considered compelled despite a failure to claim the privilege. Eiut in each of these narrowly defined situations, some factor not present here made inappropriate the general rule that the privilege must be claimed. In each situation the relevant factor was held to deny the individual a “free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer.” Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 241 (1941). For the reasons stated below, we conclude that no such factor deprived Garner of that free choice.
A
Garner relies first on cases dealing with coerced confessions, e. g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), where the Court has required the exclusion of incriminating statements unless there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the privilege regardless of whether the privilege has been claimed. Id., at 467-469, 475-477. Garner notes that it has not been shown that his failure to claim the privilege was such a waiver.
It is evident that these cases have little to do with disclosures on a tax return. The coerced-confession cases present the entirely different situation of custodial interrogation. See id., at 467. It is presumed that without proper safeguards the circumstances of custodial interrogation deny an individual the ability freely to choose to remain silent. See ibid. At the same time, the inquiring government is acutely aware of the potentially incriminatory nature of the disclosures sought. Thus, any pressures inherent in custodial interrogation are compulsions to incriminate, not merely compulsions to make unprivileged disclosures. Because of the danger that custodial interrogation posed to the adversary system favored by the privilege, the Court in Miranda was impelled to adopt the extraordinary safeguard of excluding statements made without a knowing and intelligent waiver of the privilege. Id., at 467, 475-476; see Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U. S. 96, 97 (1975); Schneck-loth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 246-247 (1973). Nothing in this case suggests the need for a similar presumption that a taxpayer makes disclosures on his return rather than claims the privilege because his will is overborne. In fact, a taxpayer, who can complete his return at leisure and with legal assistance, is even less subject to the psychological pressures at issue in Miranda than a witness who has been called to testify in judicial proceedings. Cf. United States v. Kordel, 397 U. S., at 9-10; Miranda, supra, at 461.
B
Garner relies next on Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667 (1971), the relevance of which can be understood only in light of Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39 (1968), and Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62 (1968). In the latter cases the Court considered whether the Fifth Amendment was a defense in prosecutions for failure to file the returns required of gamblers in connection with the federal occupational and excise taxes on gambling. The Court found that any disclosures made in connection with the payment of those taxes tended to incriminate because of the pervasive criminal regulation of gambling activities. Marchetti, supra, at 48-49; Grosso, supra, at 66-67. Since submitting a claim of privilege in lieu of the returns also would incriminate, the Court held that the privilege could be exercised by simply failing to file.
In Mackey, the disclosures required in connection with the gambling excise tax had been made before Marchetti and Grosso were decided. Mackey’s returns were introduced in a criminal prosecution for income tax evasion. Although a majority of the Court considered the disclosures on the returns to have been compelled incrimina-tions, 401 U. S., at 672 (plurality opinion); id., at 704-705 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 713 (Douglas, J., dissenting), Mackey was not immunized against their use because Marchetti and Grosso were held nonretroactive. 401 U. S., at 674-675 (plurality opinion); id., at 700-701 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). Garner assumes that if Mackey had made his disclosures after Marchetti and Grosso, they could not have been used against him. He then concludes that since Mackey would have been privileged to file no returns at all, Mackey stands for the proposition that an objection at trial always suffices to preserve the privilege even if disclosures have been made previously.
Assuming that Garner otherwise reads Mackey correctly, we do not think that case should be applied in this context. The basis for the holdings in Marchetti and Grosso was that the occupational and excise taxes on gambling required disclosures only of gamblers, the great majority of whom were likely to incriminate themselves by responding. Marchetti, supra, at 48-49, 57; Grosso, supra, at 66-68. Therefore, as in the coerced-confession cases, any compulsion to disclose was likely to compel self-incrimination. Garner is differently situated. Although he disclosed himself to be a gambler, federal income tax returns are not directed at those “ ‘inherently suspect of criminal activities.’ ” Marchetti, supra, at 52. As noted in Albertson v. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, 79 (1965), “the questions in [an] income tax return [are] neutral on their face and directed at the public at large.” The great majority of persons who file income tax returns do not incriminate themselves by disclosing their occupation. The requirement that such returns be completed and filed simply does not involve the compulsion to incriminate considered in Mackey.
C
Garner’s final argument relies on Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 (1967). There policemen summoned during an investigation of police corruption were informed that they could claim the privilege but that they would be discharged for doing so. The disclosures they made were introduced against them in subsequent criminal prosecutions. The Court held that the penalty of discharge for reliance on the privilege foreclosed a free choice to remain silent, and therefore had the effect of compelling the incriminating testimony given by the policemen. Garner notes that a taxpayer who claims the privilege on his return faces the possibility of a criminal prosecution under § 7203 for failure to make a return. He argues that the possibility of prosecution, like the threat of discharge in Garrity, compels a taxpayer to make incriminating disclosures rather than claim the privilege. This contention is not entirely without force, but we find it unpersuasive.
The policemen in Garrity were threatened with punishment for a concededly valid exercise of the privilege, but one in Garner’s situation is at no such disadvantage. A § 7203 conviction cannot be based on a valid exercise of the privilege. This is implicit in the dictum of United States v. Sullivan, 274 U. S. 259 (1927), that the privilege may be claimed on a return. Furthermore, the Court has held that an individual summoned by the Service to provide documents or testimony can rely on the privilege to defend against a § 7203 prosecution for failure to “supply any information.” See United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389 (1933) (Murdock II); United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141 (1931) (Murdock I), disapproved on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52 (1964). The Fifth Amendment itself guarantees the taxpayer’s insulation against liability imposed on the basis of a valid and timely claim of privilege, a protection broadened by § 7203’s statutory standard of “willfulness.”
Since a valid claim of privilege cannot be the basis for a § 7203 conviction, Garner can prevail only if the possibility that a claim made on the return will be tested in a criminal prosecution suffices in itself to deny him freedom to claim the privilege. He argues that it does so, noting that because of the threat of prosecution under § 7203 a taxpayer contemplating a claim of privilege on his return faces a more difficult choice than does a witness contemplating a claim of privilege in a judicial proceeding. If the latter claims the protection of the Fifth Amendment, he receives a judicial ruling at that time on the validity of his claim, and he has an opportunity to reconsider it before being held in contempt for refusal to answer. Cf. Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S., at 460-461. A § 7203 prosecution, however, may be brought without a preliminary judicial ruling on a claim of privilege that would allow the taxpayer to reconsider.
In essence, Garner contends that the Fifth Amendment guarantee requires such a preliminary-ruling procedure for testing the validity of an asserted privilege. It may be that such a procedure would serve the best interests of the Government as well as of the taxpayer, cf. Emspak v. United States, 349 U. S. 190, 213-214 (1955) (Harlan, J., dissenting), but we certainly cannot say that the Constitution requires it. The Court previously has considered Fifth Amendment claims in the context of a criminal prosecution where the defendant did not have the benefit of a preliminary judicial ruling on a claim of privilege. It has never intimated that such a procedure is other than permissible. Indeed, the Court has given some measure of endorsement to it. In Murdock I, supra, an individual was prosecuted under predecessors of § 7203 for refusing to make disclosures after being summoned by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. In this Court he contended, apparently on statutory grounds, that there could be no prosecution without a prior judicial enforcement suit to allow presentation of his claim of privilege to a court for a preliminary ruling. The. Court said:
“While undoubtedly the right of a witness to refuse to answer lest he incriminate himself may be tested in proceedings to compel answer, there is no support for the contention that there must be such a deter-initiation of that question before prosecution for the willful failure so denounced.” 284 U. S., at 148.
See also Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155, 167-170 (1955); Emspak v. United States, supra, at 213-214 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
We are satisfied that Murdock I states the constitutional standard. What is at issue here is principally a matter of timing and procedure. As long as a valid and timely claim of privilege is available as a defense to a taxpayer prosecuted for failure to make a return, the taxpayer has not been denied a free choice to remain silent merely because of the absence of a preliminary judicial ruling on his claim. We therefore do not agree that Garner was deterred from claiming the privilege in the sense that was true of the policemen in Garrity.
V
In summary, we conclude that since Garner made disclosures instead of claiming the privilege on his tax returns, his disclosures were not compelled incrimina-tions. He therefore was foreclosed from invoking the privilege when such information was later introduced as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Garner was also indicted for aiding and abetting the violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1084, the substantive offense involving transmission of bets and betting information. The trial judge acquitted him on this count at the close of the Government’s case.
The panel of the Court of Appeals that originally heard the case had accepted Gamer’s contention and reversed, one judge dissenting. 501 F. 2d 228. The en banc court affirmed the conviction by a 7-to-5 vote.
In Sullivan, Mr. Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, said: “It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon.” 274 U. S., at 263-264.
We have no occasion in this case to decide what types of information are so neutral that the privilege could rarely, if ever, be asserted to prevent their disclosure. See also California v. Byers, 402 U. S. 424 (1971). Further, the claims of privilege we consider here are only those justified by a fear of self-incrimination other than under the tax laws. Finally, nothing we say here questions the continuing validity of Sullivan’s holding that returns must be filed.
Title 26 U. S. C. § 7203 reads in full:
“Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return (other than a return required under authority of section 6015), keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”
Title 26 U. S. C. § 7602 reads in part:
“For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax ... , or collecting any such liability, the Secretary or his delegate is authorized—
“(2) To summon the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any officer or employee of such person, or any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any other person the Secretary or his delegate may deem proper, to appear before the Secretary or his delegate at a time and place named in the summons and to produce such books, papers,, records, or other data, and to give such testimony, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry . . . .”
Title 18 U. S. C. § 6004 would appear to authorize the Service, as an alternative to an enforcement suit, to order a summoned taxpayer to make disclosures in exchange for immunity. We are informed, however, that it has not been the Service’s practice to utilize § 6004. Brief for United States 19, and n. 11.
The term “witness” is used herein to identify one who, at the time disclosures are sought from him, is not a defendant in a criminal proceeding. The more frequent situations in which a witness’ disclosures are compelled, subject to Fifth Amendment rights, include testimony before a grand jury, in a civil or criminal case or proceeding, or before a legislative or administrative body possessing subpoena power.
The Court also has held, analogously, that a witness loses the privilege by failing to claim it promptly even though the information being sought remains undisclosed when the privilege is claimed. United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, 148 (1931), disapproved on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52 (1964); see Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S., at 371.
This conclusion has not always been couched in the language used here. Some cases have indicated that a nonclaiming witness has “waived” the privilege, see, e. g., Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103, 113 (1927). Others have indicated that such a witness testifies “voluntarily,” see, e. g., Rogers v. United States, supra, at 371. Neither usage seems analytically sound. The cases do not apply a “waiver” standard as that term was used in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938), and we recently have made clear that an individual may lose the benefit of the privilege without making a knowing and intelligent waiver. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 222-227, 235-240, 246-247 (1973). Moreover, it seems desirable to reserve the term “waiver” in these cases for the process by which one affirmatively renounces the protection of the privilege, see, e. g., Smith v. United States, 337 U. S. 137, 150 (1949). The concept of “voluntariness” is related to the concept of “compulsion.” But it may promote clarity to use the latter term in cases where disclosures are required in the face of a claim of privilege, while reserving “voluntariness” for the concerns discussed in Part IV, infra, at 656-665, where we consider whether some factor prevents a taxpayer desiring to claim the privilege from doing so.
These arguments were in fact advanced in the dissent from the en banc decision below, which Garner adopted as his brief on the self-incrimination issue. Brief for Petitioner 8. Garner’s brief itself principally advances two other claims of error. The facts underlying these claims were not presented in the petition for certiorari, see this Court’s Rule 23 (1) (e), which alone would have merited a denial of a petition not containing the self-incrimination claim. Rule 23 (4). Further, these contentions were not deemed of sufficient merit to warrant discussion below. In those circumstances we consider it inappropriate to reach them.
As we have noted, the privilege is an exception to the general principle that the Government has the right to everyone’s testimony. A corollary to that principle is that the claim of privilege ordinarily must be presented to a “tribunal” for evaluation at the time disclosures are initially sought. See Albertsons. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, 78-79 (1965); Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S., at 113; Mason v. United States, 244 U. S. 362, 364-365 (1917). This early evaluation of claims allows the Government to compel evidence if the claim is invalid or if immunity is granted and therefore assures that the Government obtains all the information to which it is entitled. In the gambling tax cases, however, making a claim of privilege when the disclosures were requested, i. e., when the returns were due, would have identified the claimant as a gambler. The Court therefore forgave the usual requirement that the claim of privilege be presented for evaluation in favor of a “claim” by silence. See Marchetti, 390 U. S., at 50. Nonetheless, it was recognized that one who “claimed” the privilege by refusing to file could be required subsequently to justify his claim of privilege. See id., at 61. If a particular gambler would not have incriminated himself by filing the tax returns, the privilege would not justify a failure to file.
Mr. Justice BrennaN, joined by Mr. Justice Marshall, concurred in the judgment on the ground that the compelled disclosure of the amount of Mackey’s gambling income could be used in a prosecution for income tax evasion. See 401 U. S., at 702.
It does not follow necessarily that a taxpayer would be immunized against use of disclosures made on gambling tax returns when the Fifth Amendment would have justified a failure to file at all. If Marchetti and Grosso had been held retroactive, immunization might have been appropriate in Mackey’s case. But at the time Mackey filed there was in fact no privilege not to file. Not only had Marchetti and Grosso not yet been decided, but United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22 (1953), and Lewis v. United States, 348 U. S. 419 (1955), previously had held that the privilege was not a defense to prosecution for failure to file the occupational tax returns. Mackey therefore was compelled to file his returns, thereby necessarily identifying himself as a gambler and thus risking self-incrimination. Accordingly, there were two related reasons to view the disclosures made in Mackey as compelled incriminations. The first was the inherently incriminating nature of the information demanded by the Government. See supra, at 658. The second was the gambler’s inability to claim the privilege by refusing to file at the time Mackey’s disclosures were required. Cf. Mackey, 401 U. S., at 704 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgment); Leary v. United States, 395 U. S. 6, 27-28 (1969); Grosso, 390 U. S., at 70-71. In the case of gambling tax returns filed after Marchetti and Grosso, the second factor would not be present.
Marchetti and Grosso, of course, removed the threat of a criminal conviction when one validly claims the privilege by failing to file gambling tax returns. We do not pause here to consider whether there may be circumstances that would deprive a gambler of the free choice to claim the privilege by failing to file, such returns, and therefore allow him to exclude a completed gambling tax return by claiming the privilege at trial. Cf. n. 13, supra.
Garner contends that whatever the case may be with regard to taxpayers in general, a gambler who might be incriminated by revealing his occupation cannot claim the privilege on the return effectively. This contention stems from the fact that certain specialized tax calculations are required only of gamblers. See § 165 (d) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 165 (d); Recent Cases, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 914, 916 n. 13 (1973). Garner argues that the process of claiming the privilege with respect to these calculations will reveal a gambler’s occupation. We need not address this contention, since Gamer found it unnecessary to make any such special calculations. 501 F. 2d, at 237 n. 3.
Garner contends that California v. Byers, 402 U. S. 424 (1971), cast doubt on Sullivan’s dictum. The Court held in Byers that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was not violated by a statute requiring motorists involved in automobile accidents to stop and identify themselves. Garner argues that Byers suggests that governments always can compel answers to neutral regulatory inquiries in a self-reporting scheme and that the protection of the Fifth Amendment should be afforded in such cases solely through use immunity.
We cannot agree that Byers undercut Sullivan’s dictum. Although there was not a majority of the Court for any rationale for the Byers holding, the Court addressed there only the basic requirement that one’s name and address be disclosed. The opinions upholding the requirement suggested that the privilege might be claimed appropriately against other questions. 402 U. S., at 434 n. 6 (plurality opinion); id., at 457-458 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). Byers is thus analogous to Sullivan, holding only that requiring certain basic disclosures fundamental to a neutral reporting scheme does not violate the privilege.
The Murdock cases involved predecessor statutes to § 7203, but they were identical to it in all material respects. See Internal Revenue Act of 1926, § 1265, 44 Stat. 850-851; Internal Revenue Act of 1928, § 146 (a), 45 Stat. 835.
Because § 7203 proscribes “willful” failures to make returns, a taxpayer is not at peril for every erroneous claim of privilege. The Government recognizes that a defendant could not properly be convicted for an erroneous claim of privilege asserted in good faith. This concession simply reflects our holding in Murdock II. There Murdock’s claim of privilege was considered unjustified (because of the holding in Murdock I disapproved in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n). But the Court recognized that “good faith” in its assertion would entitle Murdock to acquittal.
“[T]he Government, ... we think correctly, assumed that it carried the burden of showing more than a mere voluntary failure to supply information, with intent, in good faith, to exercise a privilege granted the witness by the Constitution.” 290 U. S.. at 397.
See United States v. Bishop, 412 U. S. 346 (1973). In this respect, the protection for the taxpayer in a § 7203 prosecution is broader than that for a witness who risks contempt to challenge a judicial order to disclose. In the latter case, a mere erroneous refusal to disclose warrants a sanction. See Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S. 449, 460-461 (1975).
The Government advised us at oral argument that a claim of privilege would stimulate rulings by the Service. It is doubtful, therefore, that a claimant would find himself prosecuted with no prior indication that the Service considered his claim invalid. The claimant, however, would not have a judicial assessment of his claim.
See n. 17, supra.
No language in this opinion is to be read as allowing a taxpayer desiring the protection of the privilege to make disclosures concurrently with a claim of privilege and thereby to immunize himself against the use of such disclosures. If a taxpayer desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it instead of making disclosures. Any other rule would deprive the Government of its choice between compelling the evidence from the claimant in exchange for immunity and avoiding the burdens of immunization by obtaining the evidence elsewhere. See Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S., at 711-713 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. | What is the issue area of the decision? | [
"Criminal Procedure",
"Civil Rights",
"First Amendment",
"Due Process",
"Privacy",
"Attorneys",
"Unions",
"Economic Activity",
"Judicial Power",
"Federalism",
"Interstate Relations",
"Federal Taxation",
"Miscellaneous",
"Private Action"
] | [
0
] | sc |
PARDEN et al. v. TERMINAL RAILWAY OF THE ALABAMA STATE DOCKS DEPARTMENT et al.
No. 157.
Argued February 26-27, 1964.
Decided May 18, 1964.
Al G. Rives argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Timothy M. Conway, Jr.
Willis C. Darby, Jr. argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Richmond M. Flowers, Attorney General of Alabama.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether a State that owns and operates a railroad in interstate commerce may successfully plead sovereign immunity in a federal-court suit brought against the railroad by its employee under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.
Petitioners, citizens of the State of Alabama, brought suit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Alabama against respondent Terminal Railway of the Alabama State Docks Department. They alleged that the Railway was a “common carrier by railroad . . . engaging in commerce between any of the several States” within the terms of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. §§ 51-60, and sought damages under that Act for personal injuries sustained while employed by the Railway. Respondent State of Alabama, appearing specially, moved to dismiss 'the action on the ground that the Railway was an agency of the State and the State had not waived its sovereign immunity from suit. The District Court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, 311 F. 2d 727. We granted certiorari, 375 U. S. 810. We reverse.
The Terminal Railway is wholly owned and operated by the State of Alabama through its State Docks Department, and has been since 1927. Consisting of about 50 miles of railroad tracks in the area adjacent to the State Docks at Mobile, it serves those docks and several industries situated in the vicinity, and also operates an interchange railroad with several privately owned railroad companies. It performs services for profit under statutory authority authorizing it to operate “as though it were an ordinary common carrier.” 1940 Code of Alabama (recompiled 1958), Tit. 38, § 17. It conducts substantial operations in interstate commerce. It has contracts and working agreements with the various railroad brotherhoods in accordance with the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seg.; maintains its equipment in conformity with the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 45 U. S. C. § 1 et seq.; and complies with the reporting and bookkeeping requirements of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is thus indisputably a common carrier by railroad engaging in interstate commerce.
Petitioners contend that it is consequently subject to this- suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. That statute provides that “every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce between any of the several States . . . shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce,” and that “under this chapter an action may be brought in a district court of the United States . . . 45 U. S. C. §§ 51, 56. Respondents rely, as did the lower courts in dismissing the action, on sovereign immunity — the principle that a State may not be sued by an individual without its consent. Although the Eleventh Amendment is not in terms applicable here, since petitioners are citizens of Alabama, this Court has recognized that an unconsenting State is immune from federal-court suits brought by its own citizens as well as by citizens of another State. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1; Duhne v. New Jersey, 251 U. S. 311; Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U. S. 47, 51; Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 524. See also Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313. Nor is the State divested of its immunity “on the mere ground that the case is one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Hans v. Louisiana, supra, 134 U. S., at 10; see Duhne v. New Jersey, supra, 251 U. S. 311; Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, 447-449; Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490, 497-498. But the immunity may of course be waived; the State’s freedom from suit without its consent does not protect it from a suit to which it has consented. Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 447; Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 200 U. S. 273, 284; Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n, 359 U. S. 275. We think Alabama has consented to the present suit.
This case is distinctly unlike Hans v. Louisiana, supra, where the action was a contractual one based on state bond coupons, and the plaintiff sought to invoke the federal-question jurisdiction by alleging an impairment of the obligation of contract. Such a suit on state debt obligations without the State’s consent was precisely the “evil” against which both the Eleventh Amendment and the expanded immunity doctrine of the Hans case were directed. Here, for the first time in this Court, a State’s claim of immunity against suit by an individual meets a suit brought upon a cause of action expressly created by Congress. Two questions are thus presented: (1) Did Congress in enacting the FELA intend to subject a State to suit in these circumstances? (2) Did it have the power to do so, as against the State’s claim of immunity?
We think that Congress, in making the FELA applicable to “every” common carrier by railroad in interstate commerce, meant what it said. That congressional statutes regulating railroads in interstate commerce apply to such railroads whether they are state owned or privately owned is hardly a novel proposition; it has twice been clearly affirmed by this Court. In United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, the question was whether the federal Safety Appliance Act, 45 U. S. C. §§ 2, 6, applicable by its terms to “any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad,” applied to California’s state-owned railroad. The Court unanimously held that it did. In rejecting the argument that “the statute is to be deemed inapplicable to state-owned railroads because it does not specifically mention them,” the Court said, in terms equally pertinent here:
“No convincing reason is advanced why interstate commerce and persons and property concerned in it should not receive the protection of the act whenever a state, as well as a privately-owned carrier, brings itself within the sweep of the statute, or why its all-embracing language should not be deemed to afford that protection.” 297 U. S., at 185.
In California v. Taylor, 353 U. S. 553, the question was whether the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., applicable by its terms to “any . . . carrier by railroad, subject to the Interstate Commerce Act,” applied to the same California state railroad. The Court, again unanimous, held that it did. After noting that “federal statutes regulating interstate railroads, or their employees, have consistently been held to apply to publicly owned or operated railroads,” although “none of these statutes referred specifically to public railroads as being within their coverage,” 353 U. S., at 562, the Court stated:
“The fact that Congress chose to phrase the coverage of the Act in all-embracing terms indicates that state railroads were included within it. In fact, the consistent congressional pattern in railway legislation which preceded the Railway Labor Act was to employ all-inclusive language of coverage with no suggestion that state-owned railroads were not included.” 353 U. S., at 564.
As support for this proposition, the Court relied on three decisions involving the precise question presented by the instant case, in all of which it had been held that the FELA did authorize suit against a publicly owned railroad despite a claim of sovereign immunity. Mathewes v. Port Utilities Comm’n, 32 F. 2d 913 (D. C. E. D. S. C. 1929); Higginbotham v. Public Belt R. Comm’n, 192 La. 525, 188 So. 395 (1938); Maurice v. State, 43 Cal. App. 2d 270,110 P. 2d 706 (Cal. Dist. C. A. 1941). Thus we could not read the FELA differently here without undermining the basis of our decision in Taylor.
Nor do we perceive any reason for reading it differently. The language of the FELA is at least as broad and all-embracing as that of the Safety Appliance Act or the Railway Labor Act, and its purpose is no less applicable to state railroads and their employees. If Congress made the judgment that, in view of the dangers of railroad work and the difficulty of recovering for personal injuries under existing rules, railroad workers in interstate commerce should be provided with the right of action created by the FELA, we should not presume to say, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, that it intended to exclude a particular group of such workers from the benefits conferred by the Act. To read a “sovereign immunity exception” into the Act would result, moreover, in a right without a remedy; it would mean that Congress made “every” interstate railroad liable in damages to injured employees but left one class of such employees — those whose employers happen to be state owned — without any effective means of enforcing that liability. We are unwilling to conclude that Congress intended so pointless and frustrating a result. We therefore read the FELA as authorizing suit in a Federal District Court against state-owned as well as privately owned common carriers by railroad in interstate commerce.
Respondents contend that Congress is without power, in view of the immunity doctrine, thus to subject a State to suit. We disagree. Congress enacted the FELA in the exercise of its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1. While a State’s immunity from suit by a citizen without its consent has been said to be rooted in “the inherent nature of sovereignty/’ Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Read, supra, 322 U. S. 47, 51, the States surrendered a portion of their sovereignty when they granted Congress the power to regulate commerce.
“This power, like all others vested in congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the constitution. ... If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of congress, though limited to specified objects is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, is vested in congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution of the United States.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196-197.
Thus, as the Court said in United States v. California, supra, 297 U. S., at 184-185, a State’s operation of a railroad in interstate commerce
“must be in subordination to the power to regulate interstate commerce, which has been granted specifically to the national government. The sovereign power of the states is necessarily diminished to the extent of the grants of power to the federal government in the Constitution. . . . [T]here is no such limitation upon the plenary power to regulate commerce [as there is upon the federal power to tax state instrumentalities]. The state can no more deny the power if its exercise has been authorized by Congress than can an individual.”
By empowering Congress to regulate commerce, then, the States necessarily surrendered any portion of their sovereignty that would stand in the way of such regulation. Since imposition of the FELA right of action upon interstate railroads is within the congressional regulatory power, it must follow that application of the Act to such a railroad cannot be precluded by sovereign immunity.
Recognition of the congressional power to render a State suable under the FELA does not mean that the immunity doctrine, as embodied in the Eleventh Amendment with respect to citizens of other States and as extended to the State’s own citizens by the Hans case, is here being overridden. It remains the law that a State may not be sued by an individual without its consent. Our conclusion is simply that Alabama, when it began operation of an interstate railroad .approximately 20 years after enactment of the FELA, necessarily consented to such suit as was authorized by that Act. By adopting and ratifying the Commerce Clause, the States empowered Congress to create such a right of action against interstate railroads; by enacting the FELA in the exercise of this power, Congress conditioned the right to operate a railroad in interstate commerce upon amenability to suit in federal court as provided by the Act; by thereafter operating a railroad in interstate commerce, Alabama must be taken to have accepted that condition and thus to have consented to suit. “[B]y engaging in interstate commerce by rail, [the State] has subjected itself to the commerce power, and is liable for a violation of the . . . Act, as are other carriers . . . United States v. California, supra, 297 U. S., at 185; California v. Taylor, supra, 353 U. S., at 568. We thus agree that
“[T]he state is liable, upon the theory that, by engaging in interstate commerce by rail, it has subjected itself to the commerce power of the federal government.
“It would be a strange situation, indeed, if the state could be held subject to the [Federal Safety Appliance Act] and liable for a violation thereof, and yet could not be sued without its express consent. The state, by engaging in interstate commerce, and thereby subjecting itself to the act, must be held to have waived any right it may have had arising out of the general rule that a sovereign state may not be sued without its consent.” Maurice v. State, supra, 43 Cal. App. 2d, at 275, 277, 110 P. 2d, at 710-711.
Accord, Higginbotham v. Public Belt R. Comm’n, supra, 192 La. 525, 550-551, 188 So. 395, 403; Mathewes v. Port Utilities Comm’n, supra.
Respondents deny that Alabama’s operation of the railroad constituted consent to suit. They argue that it had no such effect under state law, and that the State did not intend to waive its immunity or know that such a waiver would result. Reliance is placed on the Alabama Constitution of 1901, Art. I, Section 14 of which provides that “the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity”; on state cases holding that neither the legislature nor a state officer has the power to waive the State’s immunity; and on cases in this Court to the effect that whether a State has waived its immunity depends upon its intention and is a question of state law only. Chandler v. Dix, 194 U. S. 590; Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U. S. 32; Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U. S. 459, 466-470. We think those cases are inap-posite to the present situation, where the waiver is asserted to arise from the State’s commission of an act to which Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional power to regulate commerce, has attached the condition of amenability to suit. More pertinent to such a situation is our decision in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n, supra. That was a suit against a bi-state authority created with the consent of Congress pursuant to the Compact Clause of the Constitution. We assumed arguendo that the suit must be considered as being against the States themselves, but held nevertheless that by the terms of the compact and of a proviso that Congress had attached in approving it, the States had waived any immunity they might otherwise have had. In reaching this conclusion we rejected arguments, like the one made here, based on the proposition that neither of the States under its own law would have considered the language in the compact to constitute a waiver of its immunity. The question of waiver was, we held, one of federal law. It is true that this holding was based on the inclusion of the language in an interstate compact sanctioned by Congress under the Constitution. But such compacts do not present the only instance in which the question whether a State has waived its immunity is one of federal law. This must be true whenever the waiver is asserted to arise from an act done by the State within the realm of congressional regulation; for the congressional power to condition such an act upon amenability to suit would be meaningless if the State, on the basis of its own law or intention, could conclusively deny the waiver and shake off the condition. The broad principle of the Petty case is thus applicable here: Where a State’s consent to suit is alleged to arise from an act not wholly within its own sphere of authority but within a sphere — whether it be interstate compacts or interstate commerce — subject to the constitutional power of the Federal Government, the question whether the State’s act constitutes the alleged consent is one of federal law. Here, as in Petty, the States by venturing into the congressional realm “assume the conditions that Congress under the Constitution attached.” 359 U. S., at 281-282.
Our conclusion that this suit may be maintained is in accord with the common sense of this Nation’s federalism. A State’s immunity from suit by an individual without its consent has been fully recognized by the Eleventh Amendment and by subsequent decisions of this Court. But when a State leaves the sphere that is exclusively its own and enters into activities subject to congressional regulation, it subjects itself to that regulation as fully as if it were ■a private person or corporation. Cf. South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 463; New York v. United States, 326 U. S. 572. It would surprise our citizens, we think, to learn that petitioners, who in terms of the language and purposes of the FELA are on precisely the same footing as other railroad workers, must be denied the benefit of the Act simply because the railroad for which they work happens to be owned and operated by a State rather than a private corporation. It would be even more surprising to learn that the FELA does make the Terminal Railway “liable” to petitioners, but, unfortunately, provides no means by which that liability may be enforced. Moreover, such a result would bear the seeds of a substantial impediment to the efficient working of our federalism. States have entered and are entering numerous forms of activity which, if carried on by a private person or corporation, would be subject to federal regulation. See South Carolina v. United States, supra, 199 U. S., at 454-455. In a significant and increasing number of instances, such regulation takes the form of authorization of lawsuits by private parties. To preclude this form of regulation in all cases of state activity would remove an important weapon from the congressional arsenal with respect to a substantial volume of regulable conduct. Where, as here, Congress by the terms and purposes of its enactment has given no indication that it desires to be thus hindered in the exercise of its constitutional power, we see nothing in the Constitution to obstruct its will.
Reversed.
See also Ala. Const, of 1901, amendment 116; 1940 Code of Ala. (recompiled 1958), Tit. 38, §§45 (14), (16).
The Eleventh Amendment provides:
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
Of the other cases cited in which federal-question jurisdiction was asserted, Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, and Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490, were also commonplace suits in which the federal question did not itself give rise to the alleged cause of action against the State but merely lurked in the background. The former case was a tax-refund suit brought by receivers of a corporation created by Congress, and the latter was an admiralty suit for property damage due to negligence. Duhne v. New Jersey, 251 U. S. 311, was a suit against the State to restrain it from enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment t.o the Federal Constitution, on the ground that the Amendment was invalid.
See Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 406-407; Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 12-13, 16; The Federalist, No. 81 (Hamilton) (Cooke ed. 1961), at 548-549; Irish and Prothro, The Politics of American Democracy, at 123 (1959), quoted in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n, 359 U. S. 275, 276, n. 1; Jaffe, Suits Against Governments and Officers: Sovereign Immunity, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1963).
Although the language of the Act itself is clear enough, further indication of the congressional desire to cover all rail carriers that constitutionally could be covered is found in the legislative history, where the House Report states that “This bill relates to common carriers by railroad engaged in interstate . . . commerce .... It is intended in its scope to cover all commerce to which the regulative power of Congress extends.” H. R. Rep. No. 1386, To Accompany H. R. 20310, 60th Cong., 1st Sess. (1908).
The suit had been brought against the State not by an individual but by the United States, to recover the statutory penalty for violation of the Act.
The suit was not against the State, but against members of the National Railroad Adjustment Board to compel them to take jurisdiction over the railroad under the Act. The Court left open, 353 U. S., at 568, n. 16, the question whether the Eleventh Amendment would bar an employee of the railroad from enforcing an award by the Board in a suit against the State in a Federal District Court.
Respondents make an argument based on the provision in 45 U. S. C. § 56 that the jurisdiction of the federal courts under the FELA “shall be concurrent with that of the courts of the several States.” The contention is that since Alabama’s courts would not have taken jurisdiction over this suit, the “concurrent” jurisdiction of the federal courts must be similarly limited. See Hans v. Louisiana, supra, 134 U. S., at 18-19; but see Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419; South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286, 318. It is clear, however, that Congress did not intend this language to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but merely to provide an alternative forum in the state courts. See O’Donnell v. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co., 193 F. 2d 348, 352-353 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 343 U. S. 956; Trapp v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 283 F. 655 (D. C. N. D. Ohio 1922); Waltz v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 65 F. Supp. 913 (D. C. N. D. Ill. 1946).
See also The Federalist, No. 81 (Hamilton) (Cooke ed. 1961), at 548, quoted in Hans v. Louisiana, supra, 134 U. S., at 13. Compare Jaffe, note 4, supra, 77 Harv. L. Rev., at 3, 18.
“[B]y engaging in the railroad business a State cannot withdraw the railroad from the power of the federal government to regulate commerce.” New York v. United States, 326 U. S. 572, 582 (opinion of Frankfurter, J.).
Respondents argue that Congress could not “directly strip a state of its sovereign immunity from suit by a citizen,” and hence cannot constitutionally impose a condition of amenability to suit upon the State’s right to operate a railroad in interstate commerce. Reliance is placed on such eases as Howard v. Illinois Central R. Co., 207 U. S. 463, 502-503, and Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of California, 271 U. S. 583. In Howard, the Court held the first Federal Employers’ Liability Act unconstitutional because it applied to intrastate as well as interstate commerce, rejecting the argument that “the act is constitutional, although it embraces subjects not within the power of Congress to regulate commerce, because one who engages in interstate commerce thereby submits all his business concerns to the regulating power of Congress.” 207 U. S., at 502. In Frost & Frost, the Court held that since a private carrier could not constitutionally be converted against its will into a common carrier by mere legislative command, such a condition could not be attached to the carrier's right to use the highways. Both cases are clearly distinguishable because the condition sought to be imposed was deemed by the Court to fall outside the scope of valid regulation. Thus in Howard the statute’s application to intrastate commerce was described as an attempt by Congress to exercise “power not delegated to it by the Constitution, in other words, . . . the right to legislate concerning matters of purely state concern,” 207 U. S., at 502, and in Frost & Frost the Court stated that “the act, as thus applied, is in no real sense a regulation of the use of the public highways. It is a regulation of the business of those who are engaged in using them.” 271 U. S., at 591. Here, in contrast, Congress does have authority, within its power to regulate commerce, to subject interstate railroads to suit under the BELA; by imposing a condition requiring state-owned interstate railroads to submit to such suit, Congress is not attempting to extend its regulatory power to objects that would not otherwise be subject to it, but rather to prevent objects otherwise subject to the power from being unjustifiably excepted. That Congress could not make a State suable upon all causes of action does not mean that it cannot do so with respect to this particular cause of action, where imposition of such liability is within its power to regulate commerce and where the State, by operating a railroad in interstate commerce, has voluntarily submitted itself to that power.
Dunn Construction Co. v. State Board of Adjustment, 234 Ala. 372, 376, 175 So. 383, 386 (1937); State Tax Comm’n v. Commercial Realty Co., 236 Ala. 358, 361, 182 So. 31, 35 (1938).
This proviso was that “nothing herein contained shall be construed to affect, impair, or diminish any right, power, or jurisdiction of . . . any court ... of the United States over or in regard to any navigable waters or any commerce between the States ...” The Court read this as reserving the jurisdiction of the federal courts in suits brought against the bi-state authority under the Jones Act or any other applicable congressional regulation of navigation or commerce. 359 U. S., ht 281. The Court's reliance on this congres-sionally imposed condition in Petty is itself sufficient to refute respondents’ argument here that since Congress has no power to “directly strip a State of its sovereign immunity,” it could not impose such suability as a condition to the State’s operation of a railroad in interstate commerce. See note 11, supra. It was presumably just as true in Petty as it is here that Congress could not directly subject the States to suit in matters falling outside the power granted to Congress by the Constitution. Yet Petty held that Congress could impose such suability as a condition to allowing the States to enter into the compact. Similarly, Congress can do so here as a condition to allowing the State to operate an interstate railroad.
An employee regulation of respondent Terminal Railway explicitly recognizes that its employees may have causes of action under the FELA, providing as follows:
“Employees must not make any statement, either oral or written, concerning any accident, claim or suit in which the company is, or may be involved, to any person other than [an] authorized representative of the railway, without permission, [e]xcept in cases arising under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, otherwise known as 'an act relating to the liability of common carriers by railroad to their employees in certain cases.’ ”
The exception for cases arising under the FELA is required by 45 U. S. C. § 60. Asked about this regulation, respondents’ counsel said on oral argument that it did not indicate an intention to be subject to the Act, and could not do so in the face of the Alabama Constitution, see p. 194, supra, but had been included inadvertently when the Railway was adopting a number of regulations based upon those used by a private railroad carrier. Nevertheless, the presence of this regulation on the Terminal Railway’s books illustrates, we think, the incongruity of considering this railroad to be immune from a statutory obligation imposed on privately owned railroads that are similar in every material respect. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence. | What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision? | [
"judicial review (national level)",
"judicial review (state level)",
"Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction",
"statutory construction",
"interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order",
"diversity jurisdiction",
"federal common law"
] | [
6
] | sc |
BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. v. ROY et al.
No. 84-780.
Argued January 14, 1986
Decided June 11, 1986
Burger, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, and O’Connor, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which Powell and Rehnquist, JJ., joined. Blackmun, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, post, p. 712. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the result, post, p. 716. O’Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Brennan and Marshall, JJ., joined, post, p. 724. White, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 733.
Deputy Solicitor General Geller argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Fried, Acting Assistant Attorney General Willard, Kathryn A. Oberly, and Peter R. Maier.
Gary S. Gildin argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Franklin A. Miles, Jr., Stefan Presser, and Charles S. Sims.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights by Steven Frederick McDowell; for the National Congress of American Indians et al. by Steven C. Moore; and for the Rutherford Institute et al. by W. Charles Bundren, Guy 0. Farley, Jr., John W. Whitehead, James J. Knicely, Thomas 0. Kotouc, Wendell R. Bird, and William B. Hollberg.
Chief Justice Burger
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which Justice Powell and Justice Rehnquist join.
The question presented is whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment compels the Government to accommodate a religiously based objection to the statutory requirements that a Social Security number be provided by an applicant seeking to receive certain welfare benefits and that the States use these numbers in administering the benefit programs.
I
Appellees Stephen J. Roy and Karen Miller applied for and received benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and the Food Stamp program. They refused to comply, however, with the requirement, contained in 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(25) and 7 U. S. C. § 2025(e), that participants in these programs furnish their state welfare agencies with the Social Security numbers of the members of their household as a condition of receiving benefits. Appellees contended that obtaining a Social Security number for their 2-year-old daughter, Little Bird of the Snow, would violate their Native American religious beliefs. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare thereafter terminated AFDC and medical benefits payable to appellees on the child’s behalf and instituted proceedings to reduce the level of food stamps that appellees’ household was receiving. Appellees then filed this action against the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Agriculture, arguing that the Free Exercise Clause entitled them to an exemption from the Social Security number requirement. In their complaint, appellees stated that “[t]he sole basis” for the denial of welfare benefits was “Mr. Roy’s refusal to obtain a Social Security Number for Little Bird of the Snow,” and thus requested injunctive relief, damages, and benefits. In the statement of “undisputed facts,” the parties agreed that Little Bird of the Snow did not have a Social Security number.
At trial, Roy testified that he had recently developed a religious objection to obtaining a Social Security number for Little Bird of the Snow. Roy is a Native American descended from the Abenaki Tribe, and he asserts a religious belief that control ove¥ one’s life is essential to spiritual purity and indispensable to “becoming a holy person.” Based on recent conversations with an Abenaki chief, Roy believes that technology is “robbing the spirit of man.” In order to prepare his daughter for greater spiritual power, therefore, Roy testified to his belief that he must keep her person and spirit unique and that the uniqueness of the Social Security number as an identifier, coupled with the other uses of the number over which she has no control, will serve to “rob the spirit” of his daughter and prevent her from attaining greater spiritual power.
For purposes of determining the breadth of Roy’s religious concerns, the trial judge raised the possibility of using the phonetics of his daughter’s name to derive a Social Security number. Although Roy saw “a lot of good” in this suggestion, he stated it would violate his religious beliefs because the special number still would apply uniquely and identify her. Roy also testified that his religious objection would not be satisfied even if the Social Security Administration appended the daughter’s full tribal name to her Social Security number.
In Roy’s own testimony, he emphasized the evil that would flow simply from obtaining a number. On the last day of trial, however, a federal officer inquired whether Little Bird of the Snow already had a Social Security number; he learned that a number had been assigned — under first name “Little,” middle name “Bird of the Snow,” and last name “Roy.”
The Government at this point suggested that the case had become moot because, under Roy’s beliefs, Little Bird of the Snow’s spirit had already been “robbed.” Roy, however, was recalled to the stand and testified that her spirit would be robbed only by “use” of the number. Since no known use of the number had yet been made, Roy expressed his belief that her spirit had not been damaged. The District Court concluded that the case was not moot because of Roy’s beliefs regarding “use” of the number. See Roy v. Cohen, 590 F. Supp. 600, 605 (MD Pa. 1984) (finding of fact 33) (“Roy believes that the establishment of a social security number for Little Bird of the Snow, without more, has not ‘robbed her spirit,’ but widespread use of the social security number by the federal or state governments in their computer systems would have that effect”).
After hearing all of the testimony, the District Court denied appellees’ request for damages and benefits, but granted injunctive relief. Based on the testimony of the Government’s experts and the obvious fact that many people share certain names, the District Court found that “[utilization in the computer system of the name of a benefit recipient alone frequently is not sufficient to ensure the proper payment of benefits.” The court nevertheless concluded that the public “interest in maintaining an efficient and fraud resistant system can be met without requiring use of a social security number for Little Bird of the Snow,” elaborating:
“It appears to the Court that the harm that the Government might suffer if [appellees] prevailed in this case would be, at worst, that one or perhaps a few individuals could fraudulently obtain welfare benefits. Such a result would obtain only if (1) Little Bird of the Snow attempted fraudulently to obtain welfare benefits or someone else attempted fraudulently to obtain such benefits using Little Bird of the Snow’s name and (2) identification procedures available to the Defendants that do not require utilization of a social security number failed to expose the fraud. This possibility appears to the Court to be remote.” Id., at 612-613.
Citing our decision in United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252 (1982), the court entered an injunction containing two basic components. First, the Secretary of Health and Human Services was “permanently restrained from making any use of the social security number which was issued in the name of Little Bird of the Snow Roy and from disseminating the number to any agency, individual, business entity, or any other third party.” Second, the federal and state defendants were enjoined until Little Bird of the Snow’s 16th birthday from denying Roy cash assistance, medical assistance, and food stamps “because of the [appellees’] refusal to provide a social security number for her.”
We noted probable jurisdiction, 472 U. S. 1016 (1985), and we vacate and remand.
II
Appellees raise a constitutional challenge to two features of the statutory scheme here. They object to Congress’ requirement that a state AFDC plan “must. . . provide (A) that, as a condition of eligibility under the plan, each applicant for or recipient of aid shall furnish to the State agency his social security account number.” 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(25) (emphasis added). They also object to Congress’ requirement that “such State agency shall utilize such account numbers ... in the administration of such plan.” Ibid, (emphasis added). We analyze each of these contentions, turning to the latter contention first.
Our cases have long recognized a distinction between the freedom of individual belief, which is absolute, and the freedom of individual conduct, which is not absolute. This case implicates only the latter concern. Roy objects to the statutory requirement that state agencies “shall utilize” Social Security numbers not because it places any restriction on what he may believe or what he may do, but because he believes the use of the number may harm his daughter’s spirit.
Never to our knowledge has the Court interpreted the First Amendment to require the Government itself to behave in ways that the individual believes will further his or her spiritual development or that of his or her family. The Free Exercise Clause simply cannot be understood to require the Government to conduct its own internal affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of particular citizens. Just as the Government may not insist that appellees engage in any set form of religious observance, so appellees may not demand that the Government join in their chosen religious practices by refraining from using a number to identify their daughter. “[T]he Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can extract from the government.” Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 412 (1963) (Douglas, J., concurring).
As a result, Roy may no more prevail on his religious objection to the Government’s use of a Social Security number for his daughter than he could on a sincere religious objection to the size or color of the Government’s filing cabinets. The Free Exercise Clause affords an individual protection from certain forms of governmental compulsion; it does not afford an individual a right to dictate the conduct of the Government’s internal procedures.
As Roy points out, eight years ago Congress passed a Joint Resolution concerning American Indian religious freedom that provides guidance with respect to this case. As currently codified, the Resolution provides:
“On and after August 11, 1978, it shall be the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.” 42 U. S. C. § 1996.
That Resolution — with its emphasis on protecting the freedom to believe, express, and exercise a religion — accurately identifies the mission of the Free Exercise Clause itself. The Federal Government’s use of a Social Security number for Little Bird of the Snow does not itself in any degree impair Roy’s “freedom to believe, express, and exercise” his religion. Consequently, appellees’ objection to the statutory requirement that each state agency “shall utilize” a Social Security number in the administration of its plan is without merit. It follows that their request for an injunction against use of the Social Security number in processing benefit applications should have been rejected. We therefore hold that the portion of the District Court’s injunction that permanently restrained the Secretary from making any use of the Social Security number that had been issued in the name of Little Bird of the Snow Roy must be vacated.
Ill
Roy also challenges Congress’ requirement that a state AFDC plan “must. . . provide (A) that, as a condition of eligibility under the plan, each applicant for or recipient of aid shall furnish to the State agency his social security account number.” 42 U. S. C. §602(a)(25) (emphasis added). The First Amendment’s guarantee that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion holds an important place in our scheme of ordered liberty, but the Court has steadfastly maintained that claims of religious conviction do not automatically entitle a person to fix unilaterally the conditions and terms of dealings with the Government. Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879). This was treated recently in United States v. Lee:
“To maintain an organized society that guarantees religious freedom to a great variety of faiths requires that some religious practices yield to the common good. Religious beliefs can be accommodated, but there is a point at which accommodation would ‘radically restrict the operating latitude of the legislature.’” 455 U. S., at 259.
The statutory requirement that applicants provide a Social Security number is wholly neutral in religious terms and uniformly applicable. There is no claim that there is any attempt by Congress to discriminate invidiously or any covert suppression of particular religious beliefs. The administrative requirement does not create any danger of censorship or place a direct condition or burden on the dissemination of religious views. It does not intrude on the organization of a religious institution or school. It may indeed confront some applicants for benefits with choices, but in no sense does it affirmatively compel appellees, by threat of sanctions, to refrain from religiously motivated conduct or to engage in conduct that they find objectionable for religious reasons. Rather, it is appellees who seek benefits from the Government and who assert that, because of certain religious beliefs, they should be excused from compliance with a condition that is binding on all other persons who seek the same benefits from the Government.
This is far removed from the historical instances of religious persecution and intolerance that gave concern to those who drafted the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. See generally M. Malbin, Religion and Politics: The Intentions of the Authors of the First Amendment (1978). We are not unmindful of the importance of many government benefits today or of the value of sincerely held religious beliefs. However, while we do not believe that no government compulsion is involved, we cannot ignore the reality that denial of such benefits by a uniformly applicable statute neutral on its face is of a wholly different, less intrusive nature than affirmative compulsion or prohibition, by threat of penal sanctions, for conduct that has religious implications.
This distinction is clearly revealed in the Court’s opinions. Decisions rejecting religiously based challenges have often recited the fact that a mere denial of a governmental benefit by a uniformly applicable statute does not constitute infringement of religious liberty. In Hamilton v. Regents of University of California, 293 U. S. 245 (1934), for example, the Court rejected a religious challenge by students to military courses required as part of their curriculum, explaining:
“The fact that they are able to pay their way in this university but not in any other institution in California is without significance upon any constitutional or other question here involved. California has not drafted or called them to attend the university. They are seeking education offered by the State and at the same time insisting that they be excluded from the prescribed course solely upon grounds of their religious beliefs and conscientious objections to war . . . .” Id., at 262.
In cases upholding First Amendment challenges, on the other hand, the Court has often relied on the showing that compulsion of certain activity with religious significance was involved. In West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943), for example, the Court distinguished the earlier Hamilton holding and upheld a challenge to a flag salute requirement:
“Here ... we are dealing with a compulsion of students to declare a belief. . . . This issue is not prejudiced by the Court’s previous holding that where a State, without compelling attendance, extends college facilities to pupils who voluntarily enroll, it may prescribe military training as part of the course without offense to the Constitution. It was held that those who take advantage of its opportunities may not on ground of conscience refuse compliance with such conditions. Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U. S. 245. In the present case attendance is not optional.” 319 U. S., at 631-632.
The distinction between governmental compulsion and conditions relating to governmental benefits contained in these two cases was emphasized by Justice Brennan in his concurring opinion in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963):
“The different results of [Hamilton and Barnette] are attributable only in part to a difference in the strength of the particular state interests which the respective statutes were designed to serve. Far more significant is the fact that Hamilton dealt with the voluntary attendance at college of young adults, while Barnette involved the compelled attendance of young children at elementary and secondary schools. This distinction warrants a difference in constitutional results.” Id., at 252-253 (footnote omitted).
We have repeatedly emphasized this distinction: In rejecting á Free Exercise challenge in Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U. S. 574, 603-604 (1983), for example, we observed that the “[djenial of tax benefits will inevitably have a substantial impact on the operation of private religious schools, but will not prevent those schools from observing their religious tenets.”
We conclude then that government regulation that indirectly and incidentally calls for a choice between securing a governmental benefit and adherence to religious beliefs is wholly different from governmental action or legislation that criminalizes religiously inspired activity or inescapably compels conduct that some find objectionable for religious reasons. Although the denial of government benefits over religious objection can raise serious Free Exercise problems, these two very different forms of government action are not governed by the same constitutional standard. A governmental burden on religious liberty is not insulated from review simply because it is indirect, Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 717-718 (1981) (citing Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S., at 404); but the nature of the burden is relevant to the standard the government must meet to justify the burden.
The general governmental interests involved here buttress this conclusion. Governments today grant a broad range of benefits; inescapably at the same time the administration of complex programs requires certain conditions and restrictions. Although in some situations a mechanism for individual consideration will be created, a policy decision by a government that it wishes to treat all applicants alike and that it does not wish to become involved in case-by-case inquiries into the genuineness of each religious objection to such condition or restrictions is entitled to substantial deference. Moreover, legitimate interests are implicated in the need to avoid any appearance of favoring religious over nonreligious applicants.
The test applied in cases like Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972), is not appropriate in this setting. In the enforcement of a facially neutral and uniformly applicable requirement for the administration of welfare programs reaching many millions of people, the Government is entitled to wide latitude. The Government should not be put to the strict test applied by the District Court; that standard required the Government to justify enforcement of the use of Social Security number requirement as the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling state interest. Absent proof of an intent to discriminate against particular religious beliefs or against religion in general, the Government meets its burden when it demonstrates that a challenged requirement for governmental benefits, neutral and uniform in its application, is a reasonable means of promoting a legitimate public interest.
We reject appellees’ contention that Sherbert and Thomas compel affirmance. The statutory conditions at issue in those cases provided that a person was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits if, “without good cause,” he had quit work or refused available work. The “good cause” standard created a mechanism for individualized exemptions. If a state creates such a mechanism, its refusal to extend an exemption to an instance of religious hardship suggests a discriminatory intent. Thus, as was urged in Thomas, to consider a religiously motivated resignation to be “without good cause” tends to exhibit hostility, not neutrality, towards religion. See Brief for Petitioner 15, and Brief for American Jewish Congress as Amicus Curiae 11, in Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., O. T. 1979, No. 79-952. See also Sherbert, supra, at 401-402, n. 4; United States v. Lee, 455 U. S., at 264, n. 3 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (Thomas and Sherbert may be viewed “as a protection against unequal treatment rather than a grant of favored treatment for the members of the religious sect”). In those cases, therefore, it was appropriate to require the State to demonstrate a compelling reason for denying the requested exemption.
Here there is nothing whatever suggesting antagonism by Congress towards religion generally or towards any particular religious beliefs. The requirement that applicants provide a Social Security number is facially neutral and applies to all applicants for the benefits involved. Congress has made no provision for individual exemptions to the requirement in the two statutes in question. Indeed, to the contrary, Congress has specified that a state AFDC plan “must . . . provide (A) that, as a condition of eligibility under the plan, each applicant for or recipient of aid shall furnish to the State agency his social security account number,” 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(25) (emphasis added), and that “[s]tate agencies shall (1) require, as a condition of eligibility for participation in the food stamp program, that each household member furnish to the State agency their social security account number,” 7 U. S. C. § 2025(e) (emphasis added). Nor are these requirements relics from the past; Congress made the requirement mandatory for the Food Stamp program in 1981. Compare 7 U. S. C. § 2025(f) (1976 ed., Supp. IV) (State agencies “may” require that each household member furnish their Social Security number), with 7 U. S. C. § 2025(e) (States “shall” require that such numbers be furnished). Congress also recently extended to several other aid programs the mandatory requirement that the States use Social Security numbers in verifying eligibility for benefits. See Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, § 2651(a), 98 Stat. 1147.
The Social Security number requirement clearly promotes a legitimate and important public interest. No one can doubt that preventing fraud in these benefits programs is an important goal. As Representative Richmond explained in support of the bill that made the Social Security number requirement mandatory for the Food Stamp program:
“We know that however generously motivated Americans may be to furnish resources to the poor to enable them to survive, . . . they understandably object if they believe that those resources are being abused or wasted. . . .
‘We want to be certain that the food stamp program is run as efficiently and as error-free as possible.
‘We want applicants and recipients alike constantly to be aware that the Congress does not and will not tolerate any refusal to disclose earnings accurately, and underreporting of welfare or other assistance program benefits, any efforts to evade the work requirement or any other attempts to take advantage of the program and dollars intended only for those who completely satisfy the stringent eligibility requirements set forth in sections 5 and 7 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 and further tightened this year and in this bill.” 127 Cong. Rec. 24783 (1981).
We also think it plain that the Social Security number requirement is a reasonable means of promoting that goal. The programs at issue are of truly staggering magnitude. Each year roughly 3.8 million families receive $7.8 billion through federally funded AFDC programs and 20 million persons receive $11 billion in food stamps. The Social Security program itself is the largest domestic governmental program in the United States today, distributing approximately $51 billion monthly to 36 million recipients. Because of the tremendous administrative problems associated with managing programs of this size, the District Court found:
“Social security numbers are used in making the determination that benefits in the programs are properly paid and that there is no duplication of benefits or failure of payment. . . . Utilization in the computer system of the name of a benefit recipient alone frequently is not sufficient to ensure the proper payment of benefits.”
Social Security numbers are unique numerical identifiers and are used pervasively in these programs. The numbers are used, for example, to keep track of persons no longer entitled to receive food stamps because of past fraud or abuses of the program. Moreover, the existence of this unique numerical identifier creates opportunities for ferreting out fraudulent applications through computer “matching” techniques. One investigation, “Project Match,” compared federal employee files against AFDC and Medicaid files to determine instances of Government employees receiving welfare benefits improperly. Data from 26 States were examined, and 9,000 individuals were identified as receiving duplicate welfare payments. While undoubtedly some fraud escapes detection in spite of such investigations, the President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, known more popularly as the “Grace Commission,” recently reported that matching “is the Federal Government’s most cost-effective tool for verification or investigation in the prevention and detection of fraud, waste and abuse.” 7 The President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, Management Office Selected Issues — Information Gap in the Federal Government 90 (1984).
The importance of the Social Security number to these matching techniques is illustrated by the facts of this case. The District Court found that “efficient operation of these [matching] programs requires the use of computer systems that utilize unique numerical identifiers such as the social security number.” 590 F. Supp., at 606. It further found that exempting even appellees alone from this requirement could result in “one or perhaps a few individuals . . . fraudulently obtaining] welfare benefits,” id., at 612, a prospect the court termed “remote.” Id., at 613. The District Court’s assessment of this probability seems quite dubious. But in any event, we know of no case obligating the Government to tolerate a slight risk of “one or perhaps a few individuals” fraudulently obtaining benefits in order to satisfy a religious objection to a requirement designed to combat that very risk. Appellees may not use the Free Exercise Clause to demand Government benefits, but only on their own terms, particularly where that insistence works a demonstrable disadvantage to the Government in the administration of the programs.
As the Court has recognized before, given the diversity of beliefs in our pluralistic society and the necessity of providing governments with sufficient operating latitude, some incidental neutral restraints on the free exercise of religion are inescapable. As a matter of legislative policy, a legislature might decide to make religious accommodations to a general and neutral system of awarding benefits, “[b]ut our concern is not with the wisdom of legislation but with its constitutional limitation.” Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599, 608 (1961) (plurality opinion). We conclude that the Congress’ refusal to grant appellees a special exemption does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded.
It is so ordered.
We refer to the statutory scheme as it existed at the time appellees filed suit. The scheme has since been amended, although the Social Security number requirement has been retained in virtually identical form. See Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, § 2651(a), 98 Stat. 1147.
Roy and Miller both have Social Security numbers. They also obtained a Social Security number for their 5-year-old daughter Renee at some time prior to the present dispute.
“[Q.] Mr. Roy, could you explain why obtaining a Social Security Number for Little Bird of the Snow would be contrary to your religious beliefs as a native Abenaki?
“A. Yes. Because we felt that this number would be used to rob her of her ability to have greater power in that this number is a unique number. It serves unique purposes. It’s applied to her and only her; and being applied to her, that’s what offends us, and we try to keep her person unique, and we try to keep her spirit unique, and we’re scared that if we were to use this number, she would lose control of that and she would have no ability to protect herself from any evil that that number might be used against her.” App. 85.
They also raise a statutory argument — that the Government’s denial of benefits to them constitutes illegal discrimination on the basis of religion or national origin. See 42 U. S. C. §2000d; 7 U. S. C. §2011. We find these claims to be without merit.
The Food Stamp program restrictions that appellees challenge contain restrictions virtually identical to those in the AFDC program quoted in the text. See 7 U. S. C. § 2025(e).
Roy’s religious views may not accept this distinction between individual and governmental conduct. See, e. g., n. 3, supra. It is clear, however, that the Free Exercise Clause, and the Constitution generally, recognize such a distinction; for the adjudication of a constitutional claim, the Constitution, rather than an individual’s religion, must supply the frame of reference.
This issue is clearly not moot in light of our discussion in Part II, contrary to the suggestion of the two concurrences. Justice Stevens asserts that “there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Government will not pay the benefits in dispute as soon as the District Court’s injunction against the use of the number has been vacated.” Post, at 723. To my mind, this statement, while true, fundamentally misperceives the nature of appellees’ suit. Appellees do not seek to have the Government “pay the benefits in dispute as soon as the District Court’s injunction against use of the number has been vacated.” Such payment would entail use of Little Bird of the Snow’s Social Security number, use that appellees filed suit to prevent.
Justice Blackmun similarly believes that on remand “it is possible that the Government, in a welcome display of reasonableness, will decide that since it already has a Social Security number for Little Bird of the Snow, it will not insist that appellees resupply it.” Post, at 714-715. My reading of the record is that such an occurrence is not a mere “possibility.” Justice Stevens cites federal regulations that provide that the Government will assist households that, for some reason or other, are unable to furnish a Social Security number. See post, at 721-722. Moreover, the Government’s brief in this Court reports that “we are advised by the Social Security Administration that the agency itself assigns [Social Security numbers] to persons who are required by federal law to have one but decline to complete an application. If, for religious reasons, the individual requiring [a Social Security number] does not wish to receive a social security card, the agency will accommodate that request. Similarly, when an applicant refuses to sign an application for [a Social Security number] on religious grounds, [Social Security Administration personnel] may sign in lieu of the applicant.” Brief for Appellants 46, n. 19 (emphasis added; citations omitted). Thus, the Government undoubtedly would be happy to “supply” the number for appellees —i. e., fill the number in on their applications —if this is what they wanted. But appellees do not desire any such assistance from the Government; instead they filed suit seeking a ruling excluding them from the operation of any portion of the statutory scheme involving Social Security numbers. They continue to press this claim in this Court. For the reasons advanced here this claim ultimately lacks merit, but it certainly is not moot.
Also, in view of our analysis of the case, because all relevant facts are before the Court and further proceedings in the District Court could not produce information that would change the result, the case is ripe for decision.
Cf. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940).
Cf. Follett v. Town of McCormick, 321 U. S. 573, 577-578 (1944); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 112 (1943).
Cf. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U. S. 94 (1952).
Cf. NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U. S. 490 (1979).
Cf. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 574 (1941); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 167 (1879).
United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, 259 (1982); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972); Gillette v. United States 401 U. S. 437 (1971); West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905).
Concurring in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 521 (1961), Justice Frankfurter viewed it as important that the challenged statutes “do not make criminal, do not place under the onus of civil or criminal disability, any act which is itself prescribed by the duties of the Jewish or other religions.” In Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599, 605-606 (1961), the plurality opinion emphasized: “Fully recognizing that the alternatives open to appellants and others similarly situated . . . may result in some financial sacrifice in order to observe their religious beliefs, still the option is wholly different than when the legislation attempts to make a religious practice itself unlawful.”
In Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at 218, we similarly relied on the fact that “[t]he impact of the compulsory-attendance law on respondents’ practice of the Amish religion is not only severe, but inescapable, for the Wisconsin law affirmatively compels them, under threat of criminal sanction, to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs.”
Justice O’Connor’s partial dissent asserts that the Court’s holding “has no basis in precedent,” post, at 727. To the contrary, it is the history advanced by the dissenting opinions that is revisionist. The dissent characterizes our prior eases as holding that the denial of a benefit is the same, for constitutional purposes, as the imposition of a criminal sanction. In Bob Jones University, however, the Court upheld the denial of tax benefits to a school that prohibited interracial dating, observing that the school remained wholly free to “observ[e] [its] religious tenets.” 461 U. S., at 604. If denying governmental benefits is the same as imposing criminal sanctions, then the Free Exercise Clause could not prevent the Government from ordering Bob Jones University, under pain of criminal penalty, to violate its religious beliefs and permit interracial dating on its campus. But that difficult question is still an open one since “the Constitution may compel toleration of private discrimination in some circumstances.” Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U. S. 455, 463 (1973).
It is readily apparent that virtually every action that the Government takes, no matter how innocuous it might appear, is potentially susceptible to a Free Exercise objection. For example, someone might raise a religious objection, based on Norse mythology, to filing a tax return on a Wednesday (Woden’s day). Accordingly, if the dissent’s interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause is to be taken seriously, then the Government will be unable to enforce any generally applicable rule unless it can satisfy a federal court that it has a “compelling government interest.” While libertarians and anarchists -will no doubt applaud this result, it is hard to imagine that this is what the Framers intended.
The District Court’s assessment appears to have turned in part on its belief that it was unlikely that Little Bird of the Snow or her parents would attempt fraudulently to obtain welfare benefits. Without in any way questioning the conclusion that appellees are law-abiding citizens, we believe that the District Court mispereeived the nature of the Government’s interest. The Government’s interest is ensuring a fraud-resistent system in the event that a fraudulent application is made by appellees.
This misunderstanding of the Government’s interest probably accounts for the District Court’s conclusion that the Government’s interest in preventing fraud “can be satisfied without requiring a social security number for Little Bird of the Snow.” 590 F. Supp., at 607. In any event, this conclusionary statement is certainly at odds with the District Court’s more specific statement quoted in text regarding the prospects for “one or perhaps a few individuals . . . fraudulently obtaining] welfare benefits.” Indeed, the partial dissent appears to concede that its position might result in one or perhaps a few individuals fraudulently receiving benefits.
An exemption adopted by Congress to accommodate religious beliefs such as appellees’ would not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. See Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 409-410 (1963). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the reason, if any, given by the court for granting the petition for certiorari. | What reason, if any, does the court give for granting the petition for certiorari? | [
"case did not arise on cert or cert not granted",
"federal court conflict",
"federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question",
"putative conflict",
"conflict between federal court and state court",
"state court conflict",
"federal court confusion or uncertainty",
"state court confusion or uncertainty",
"federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty",
"to resolve important or significant question",
"to resolve question presented",
"no reason given",
"other reason"
] | [
0
] | sc |
UNITED STATES v. REYNOLDS et al.
No. 21.
Argued October 21, 1952.
Decided March 9, 1953.
Samuel D. Slade argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Stern and Assistant Attorney General Baldridge.
Charles J. Biddle argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Francis Hopkinson.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These suits under the Tort Claims Act arise from the death of three civilians in the crash of a B-29 aircraft at Way cross, Georgia, on October 6, 1948. Because an important question of the Government’s privilege to resist discovery is involved, we granted certiorari. 343 U. S. 918.
The aircraft had taken flight for the purpose of testing secret electronic equipment, with four civilian observers aboard. While aloft, fire broke out in one of the bomber’s engines. Six of the nine crew members and three of the four civilian observers were killed in the crash.
The widows of the three deceased civilian observers brought consolidated suits against the United States. In the pretrial stages the plaintiffs moved, under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for production of the Air Force’s official accident investigation report and the statements of the three surviving crew members, taken in connection with the official investigation. The Government moved to quash the motion, claiming that these matters were privileged against disclosure pursuant to Air Force regulations promulgated under R. S. § 161. The District Judge sustained plaintiffs’ motion, holding that good cause for production had been shown. The claim of privilege under R. S. § 161 was rejected on the premise that the Tort Claims Act, in making the Government liable “in the same manner” as a private individual, had waived any privilege based upon executive control over governmental documents.
Shortly after this decision, the District Court received a letter from the Secretary of the Air Force, stating that “it has been determined that it would not be in the public interest to furnish this report. . . The court allowed a rehearing on its earlier order, and at the rehearing the Secretary of the Air Force filed a formal “Claim of Privilege.” This document repeated the prior claim based generally on R. S. § 161, and then stated that the Government further objected to production of the documents “for the reason that the aircraft in question, together with the personnel on board, were engaged in a highly secret mission of the Air Force.” An affidavit of the Judge Advocate General, United States Air Force, was also filed with the court, which asserted that the demanded material could not be furnished “without seriously hampering national security, flying safety and the development of highly technical and secret military equipment.” The same affidavit offered to produce the three surviving crew members, without cost, for examination by the plaintiffs. The witnesses would be allowed to refresh their memories from any statement made by them to the Air Force, and authorized to testify as to all matters except those of a “classified nature.”
The District Court ordered the Government to produce the documents in order that the court might determine whether they contained privileged matter. The Government declined, so the court entered an order, under Rule 37 (b)(2)(i), that the facts on the issue of negligence would be taken as established in plaintiffs’ favor. After a hearing to determine damages, final judgment was entered for the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals affirmed, both as to the showing of good cause for production of the documents, and as to the ultimate disposition of the case as a consequence of the Government’s refusal to produce the documents.
We have had broad propositions pressed upon us for decision. On behalf of the Government it has been urged that the executive department heads have power to withhold any documents in their custody from judicial view if they deem it to be in the public interest. Respondents have asserted that the executive’s power to withhold documents was waived by the Tort Claims Act. Both positions have constitutional overtones which we find it unnecessary to pass upon, there being a narrower ground for decision. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U. S. 462 (1951); Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 331 U. S. 549, 574-585 (1947).
The Tort Claims Act expressly makes the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to suits against the United States. The judgment in this case imposed liability upon the Government by operation of Rule 37, for refusal to produce documents under Rule 34. Since Rule 34 compels production only of matters “not privileged,” the essential question is whether there was a valid claim of privilege under the Rule. We hold that there was, and that, therefore, the judgment below subjected the United States to liability on terms to which Congress did not consent by the Tort Claims Act.
We think it should be clear that the term “not privileged,” as used in Rule 34, refers to “privileges” as that term is understood in the law of evidence. When the Secretary of the Air Force lodged his formal “Claim of Privilege,” he attempted therein to invoke the privilege against revealing military secrets, a privilege which is well established in the law of evidence. The existence of the privilege is conceded by the court below, and, indeed, by the most outspoken critics of governmental claims to privilege.
Judicial experience with the privilege which protects military and state secrets has been limited in this country. English experience has been more extensive, but still relatively slight compared with other evidentiary privileges. Nevertheless, the principles which control the application of the privilege emerge quite, clearly from the available precedents. The privilege belongs to the Government and must be asserted by it; it can neither be claimed nor waived by a private party. It is not to be lightly invoked. There must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer. The court itself must determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege, and yet do so without forcing a disclosure of the very thing the privilege is designed to protect. The latter requirement is the only one which presents real difficulty. As to it, we find it helpful to draw upon judicial experience in dealing with an analogous privilege, the privilege against self-incrimination.
The privilege against self-incrimination presented the courts with a similar sort of problem. Too much judicial inquiry into the claim of privilege would force disclosure of the thing the privilege was meant to protect, while a complete abandonment of judicial control would lead to intolerable abuses. Indeed, in the earlier stages of judicial experience with the problem, both extremes were advocated, some saying that the bare assertion by the witness must be taken as conclusive, and others saying that the witness should be required to reveal the matter behind his claim of privilege to the judge for verification. Neither extreme prevailed, and a sound formula of compromise was developed. This formula received authoritative expression in this country as early as the Burr trial. There are differences in phraseology, but in substance it is agreed that the court must be satisfied from all the evidence and circumstances, and “from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486-487 (1951). If the court is so satisfied, the claim of the privilege will be accepted without requiring further disclosure.
Regardless of how it is articulated, some like formula of compromise must be applied here. Judicial control over the evidence in a case cannot be abdicated to the caprice of executive officers. Yet we will not go so far as to say that the court may automatically require a complete disclosure to the judge before the claim of privilege will be accepted in any case. It may be possible to satisfy the court, from all the circumstances of the case, that there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged. When this is the case, the occasion for the privilege is appropriate, and the court should not jeopardize the security which the privilege is meant to protect by insisting upon an examination of the evidence, even by the judge alone, in chambers.
In the instant case we cannot escape judicial notice that this is a time of vigorous preparation for national defense. Experience in the past war has made it common knowledge that air power is one of the most potent weapons in our scheme of defense, and that newly developing electronic devices have greatly enhanced the effective use of air power. It is equally apparent that these electronic devices must be kept secret if their full military advantage is to be exploited in the national interests. On the record before the trial court it appeared that this accident occurred to a military plane which had gone aloft to test secret electronic equipment. Certainly there was a reasonable danger that the accident investigation report would contain references to the secret electronic equipment which was the primary concern of the mission.
Of course, even with this information before him, the trial judge was in no position to decide that the report was privileged until there had been a formal claim of privilege. Thus it was entirely proper to rule initially that petitioner had shown probable cause for discovery of the documents. Thereafter, when the formal claim of privilege was filed by the Secretary of the Air Force, under circumstances indicating a reasonable possibility that military secrets were involved, there was certainly a sufficient showing of privilege to cut off further demand for the documents on the showing of necessity for its compulsion that had then been made.
In each case, the showing of necessity which is made will determine how far the court should probe in satisfying itself that the occasion for invoking the privilege is appropriate. Where there is a strong showing of necessity, the claim of privilege should not be lightly accepted, but even the most compelling necessity cannot overcome the claim of privilege if the court is ultimately satisfied that military secrets are at stake. A fortiori, where necessity is dubious, a formal claim of privilege, made under the circumstances of this case, will have to prevail. Here, necessity was greatly minimized by an available alternative, which might have given respondents the evidence to make out their case without forcing a showdown on the claim of privilege. By their failure to pursue that alternative, respondents have posed the privilege question for decision with the formal claim of privilege set against a dubious showing of necessity.
There is nothing to suggest that the electronic equipment, in this case, had any causal connection with the accident. Therefore, it should be possible for respondents to adduce the essential facts as to causation without resort to material touching upon military secrets. Respondents were given a reasonable opportunity to do just that, when petitioner formally offered to make the surviving crew members available for examination. We think that offer should have been accepted.
Respondents have cited us to those cases in the criminal field, where it has been held that the Government can invoke its evidentiary privileges only at the price of letting the defendant go free. The rationale of the criminal cases is that, since the Government which prosecutes an accused also has the duty to see that justice is done, it is unconscionable to allow it to undertake prosecution and then invoke its governmental privileges to deprive the accused of anything which might be material to his defense. Such rationale has no application in a civil forum where the Government is not the moving party, but is a defendant only on terms to which it has consented.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case will be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, and Mr. Justice Jackson dissent, substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Maris below. 192 F. 2d 987.
28 U. S. C. §§ 1346,2674.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 34.
“Rule 34. Discovery and Production of Documents and Things for Inspection, Copying, or Photographing. Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor and upon notice to all other parties, and subject to the provisions of Rule 30 (b), the court in which an action is pending may (1) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence relating to any of the matters within the scope of the examination permitted by Rule 26 (b) and which are in his possession, custody, or control; or (2) order any party to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any designated object or operation thereon within the scope of the examination permitted by Rule 26 (b). The order shall specify the time, place, and manner of making the inspection and taking the copies and photographs and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.”
511. S. C. § 22:
“The head of each department is authorized to prescribe regulations, not inconsistent with law, for the government of his department, the conduct of its officers and clerks, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of the records, papers, and property appertaining to it.”
Air Force Regulation No. 62-7 (5) (b) provides:
“Reports of boards of officers, special accident reports, or extracts therefrom will not be furnished or made available to persons outside the authorized chain of command without the specific approval of the Secretary of the Air Force.”
10 F. R. D. 468.
28 U.S. C. §2674:
“The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages.”
“Rule 37. Refusal to Make Discovery: Consequences.
“(b) Failure to Comply With Order.
“ (2) Other Consequences. If any party or an officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey ... an order made under Rule 34 to produce any document . . ., the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others the following:
“ (i) An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or the character or description of the thing or land, or the contents of the paper, or the physical or mental condition of the party, or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order; . . . .”
192 F. 2d 987.
While claim of executive power to suppress documents is based more immediately upon R. S. § 161 (see supra, note 4), the roots go much deeper. It is said that R. S. § 161 is only a legislative recognition of an inherent executive power which is protected in the constitutional system of separation of power.
28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 932; United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U. S. 543, 553 (1951).
Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105, 107 (1875); Firth Sterling Steel Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 199 F. 353 (D. C. E. D. Pa. 1912); Pollen v. Ford Instrument Co., 26 F. Supp. 583 (D. C. E. D. N. Y. 1939); Cresmer v. United States, 9 F. R. D. 203 (D. C. E. D. N. Y. 1949); see Bank Line v. United States, 68 F. Supp. 587 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1946), 163 F. 2d 133 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1947). 8 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed.) § 2212a, p. 161, and §2378 (g)(5), at pp. 785 et seq.; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence (16th ed.) §§ 250-251; Sanford, Evidentiary Privileges Against the Production of Data Within the Control of Executive Departments, 3 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 73, 74-75 (1949).
192 F. 2d 987, 996.
See Wigmore, op. cit. supra, note 11.
See cases cited supra, note 11.
Most of the English precedents are reviewed in the recent case of Duncan v. Cammell, Laird & Co., [1942] A. C. 624.
Firth Sterling Steel Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 199 F. 353 (D. C. E.D.Pa. 1912).
In re Grove, 180 F. 62 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1910).
Marshall, C. J., in the Aaron Burr trial, I Robertson’s Reports 186: “That there may be matter, the production of which the court would not require, is certain .... What ought to be done, under such circumstances, presents a delicate question, the discussion of which, it is hoped, will never be rendered necessary in this country.”
Firth case, supra, note 16.
“The essential matter is that the decision to object should be taken by the minister who is the political head of the department, and that he should have seen and considered the contents of the documents and himself have formed the view that on grounds of public interest they ought not to be produced Duncan v. Cammell, Laird & Co., [1942] A. C. 624, 638.
Id., atp. 642:
“Although an objection validly taken to production, on the ground that this would be injurious to the public interest, is conclusive, it is important to remember that the decision ruling out such documents is the decision of the fudge. ... It is the judge who is in control of the trial, not the executive . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
Id., at pp. 638-642; cf. the language of this Court in Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486 (1951), speaking of the analogous hazard of probing too far in derogation of the claim of privilege against self-incrimination:
“However, if the witness, upon interposing his claim, were required to prove the hazard in the sense in which a claim is usually required to be established in court, he would he compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Compare the expressions of Rolfe, B. and Wilde, C. J. in Regina v. Garbett, 2 Car. & K. 474, 492 (1847); see 8 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed.) § 2271.
1 Robertson’s Reports 244:
“When a question is propounded, it belongs to the court to consider and to decide, whether any direct answer to it can implicate the witness. If this be decided in the negative, then he may answer it without violating the privilege which is secured to him by law. If a direct answer to it may criminate himself, then he must be the sole judge what his answer would be. The court cannot participate with him in this judgment, because they cannot decide on the effect of his answer without knowing what it would be; and a disclosure of that fact to the judges would strip him of the privilege which the law allows, and which he claims.”
Brown v. United States, 276 U. S. 134 (1928); Mason v. United States, 244 U. S. 362 (1917).
See Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105 (1875), where the very subject matter of the action, a contract to perform espionage, was a matter of state secret. The action was dismissed on the pleadings without ever reaching the question of evidence, since it was so obvious that the action should never prevail over the privilege.
United States v. Andolschek, 142 F. 2d 503 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1944); United States v. Beekman, 155 F. 2d 580 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1946). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded. | What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"modify",
"remand",
"unusual disposition"
] | [
1
] | sc |
PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. v. DOE, GUARDIAN, et al.
No. 80-1538.
Argued December 1, 1981
Decided June 15, 1982
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens, JJ., joined. Marshall, J., post, p. 230, Blackmun, J., post, p. 231, and Powell, J., post, p. 236, filed concurring opinions. Burger, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which White, Rehnquist, and O’Connor, JJ., joined, post, p. 242.
John C. Hardy argued the cause for appellants in No. 80-1538. Richard Arnett, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for appellants in No. 80-1934. With them on the briefs were Mark White, Attorney General, John W. Fainter, Jr., First Assistant Attorney General, and Richard E. Gray III, Executive Assistant Attorney General.
Peter D. Roos argued the cause for appellees in No. 80-1538. With him on the brief were Larry Daves and Vilma S. Martinez. Peter A. Schey argued the cause for appellees in No. 80-1934. With him on the briefs were Al Campos, Larry Mealer, and Jane Swanson.
Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Reynolds, and Edwin S. Kneedler filed a brief for the United States in No. 80-1934 and for the United States as amicus curiae in No. 80~1538.
Together with No. 80-1934, Texas et al. v. Certain Named and Unnamed Undocumented Alien Children et al., also on appeal from the same court.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal in both bases were filed by Travis Hiester, Orrin W. Johnson, Neal King, and Tony Martinez for the Harlingen Consolidated Independent School District et al.; and by John S. Aldridge for the Texas Association of School Boards. Ronald A. Zum-brun and John H. Findley filed a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging reversal in No. 80-1538.
Briefs of amid curiae urging affirmance in both cases were filed by James J. Orlow for the American Immigration Lawyers Association; by Samuel Rabinove for the American Jewish Committee; by Bill Lann Lee for the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; by the Edgewood Independent School District; by Peter B. Sandmann for the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco; by Michael K. Suarez for the Mexican American Bar Association of Houston; by Robert J. Kenney, Jr., for the National Education Association et al.; by Fred Fuchs for Texas Impact; and by Daniel Marcus and John F. Cooney for the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al. Thomas M. Griffin filed a brief for the California State Board of Education as amicus curiae urging affirmance in No. 80-1538.
Briefs of amici curiae in both cases were filed by Joseph C. Zengerle for the Federation for American Immigration Reform; by David Crump for the Legal Foundation of America; and by Roger J. Marzulla and Maxwell A. Miller for the Mountain States Legal Foundation.
Briefs of amici curiae in No. 80-1934 were filed by Joyce D. Miller for the American Friends Service Committee et al.; and by Gwendolyn H. Gregory, Thomas A. Shannon, and August W. Steinhilber for the National School Boards Association.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens.
I
Since the late 19th century, the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U. S. C. § 1325, and those who have entered unlawfully are subject to deportation, 8 U. S. C. §§ 1251,1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But despite the existence of these legal restrictions, a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering the United States, and now live within various States, including the State of Texas.
In May 1975, the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to withhold from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States. The 1975 revision also authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in their public schools to children not “legally admitted” to the country. Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §21.031 (Vernon Supp. 1981). These cases involve constitutional challenges to those provisions.
No. 80-1538
Plyler v. Doe
This is a class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in September 1977, on behalf of certain school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Smith County, Tex., who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United States. The action complained of the exclusion of plaintiff children from the public schools of the Tyler Independent School District. The Superintendent and members of the Board of Trustees of the School District were named as defendants; the State of Texas intervened as a party-defendant. After certifying a class consisting of all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin residing within the School District, the District Court preliminarily enjoined defendants from denying a free education to members of the plaintiff class. In December 1977, the court conducted an extensive hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for permanent injunctive relief.
In considering this motion, the District Court made extensive findings of fact. The court found that neither §21.031 nor the School District policy implementing it had “either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas.” 458 F. Supp. 569, 575 (1978). Respecting defendants’ further claim that §21.031 was simply a financial measure designed to avoid a drain on the State’s fisc, the court recognized that the increases in population resulting from the immigration of Mexican nationals into the United States had created problems for the public schools of the State, and that these problems were exacerbated by the special educational needs of immigrant Mexican children. The court noted, however, that the increase in school enrollment was primarily attributable to the admission of children who were legal residents. Id., at 575-576. It also found that while the “exclusion of all undocumented children from the public schools in Texas would eventually result in economies at some level,” id., at 576, funding from both the State and Federal Governments was based primarily on the number of children enrolled. In net effect then, barring undocumented children from the schools would save money, but it would “not necessarily” improve “the quality of education.” Id., at 577- The court further observed that the impact of §21.031 was borne primarily by a very small subclass of illegal aliens, “entire families who have migrated illegally and — for all practical purposes — permanently to the United States.” Id., at 578. Finally, the court noted that under current laws and practices “the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow,” and that without an education, these undocumented children, “[a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices,. . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class.” Id., at 577.
The District Court held that illegal aliens were entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that §21.031 violated that Clause. Suggesting that “the state’s exclusion of undocumented children from its public schools . . . may well be the type of invidiously motivated state action for which the suspect classification doctrine was designed,” the court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the statute would survive a “strict scrutiny” analysis because, in any event, the discrimination embodied in the statute was not supported by a rational basis. Id., at 585. The District Court also concluded that the Texas statute violated the Supremacy Clause. Id., at590-592.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court’s injunction. 628 F. 2d 448 (1980). The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had erred in finding the Texas statute pre-empted by federal law. With respect to equal protection, however, the Court of Appeals affirmed in all essential respects the analysis of the District Court, id., at 454-458, concluding that § 21.031 was "constitutionally infirm regardless of whether it was tested using the mere rational basis standard or some more stringent test,” id., at 458. We noted probable jurisdiction. 451 U. S. 968 (1981).
No. 80-1934
In re Alien Children Education Litigation
During 1978 and 1979, suits challenging the constitutionality of §21.031 and various local practices undertaken on the authority of that provision were filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern, Western, and Northern Districts of Texas. Each suit named the State of Texas and the Texas Education Agency as defendants, along with local officials. In November 1979, the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation, on motion of the State, consolidated the claims against the state officials into a single action to be heard in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. A hearing was conducted in February and March 1980. In July 1980, the court entered an opinion and order holding that §21.031 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In re Alien Children Education Litigation, 501 F. Supp. 544. The court held that “the absolute deprivation of education should trigger strict judicial scrutiny, particularly when the absolute deprivation is the result of complete inability to pay for the desired benefit.” Id., at 582. The court determined that the State’s concern for fiscal integrity was not a compelling state interest, id., at 582-583; that exclusion of these children had not been shown to be necessary to improve education within the State, id., at 583; and that the educational needs of the children statutorily excluded were not different from the needs of children not excluded, ibid. The court therefore concluded that §21.031 was not carefully tailored to advance the asserted state interest in an acceptable manner. Id., at 583-584. While appeal of the District Court’s decision was pending, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in No. 80-1538. Apparently on the strength of that opinion, the Court of Appeals, on February 23,1981, summarily affirmed the decision of the Southern District. We noted probable jurisdiction, 452 U. S. 937 (1981), and consolidated this case with No. 80-1538 for briefing and argument.
H-Í HH
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[njo State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person mthin its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not “persons within the jurisdiction” of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a “person” in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as “persons” guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 77 (1976).
Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants’ view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase “within its jurisdiction.” We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.
“The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” Yick Wo, supra, at 369 (emphasis added).
In concluding that “all persons within the territory of the United States,” including aliens unlawfully present, may invoke the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to challenge actions of the Federal Government, we reasoned from the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to afford its protection to all within the boundaries of a State. Wong Wing, supra, at 238. Our cases applying the Equal Protection Clause reflect the same territorial theme:
“Manifestly, the obligation of the State to give the protection of equal laws can be performed only where its laws operate, that is, within its own jurisdiction. It is there that the equality of legal right must be maintained. That obligation is imposed by the Constitution upon the States severally as governmental entities, — each responsible for its own laws establishing the rights and duties of persons within its borders,” Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337, 350 (1938).
There is simply no support for appellants’ suggestion that “due process” is somehow, of greater stature than “equal protection” and therefore available to a larger class of persons. To the contrary , each aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment reflects an elementary limitation on state power. To permit a State to employ the phrase “within its jurisdiction” in order to identify subclasses of persons whom it would define as beyond its jurisdiction, thereby relieving itself of the obligation to assure that its laws are designed and applied equally to those persons, would undermine the principal purpose for which the Equal Protection Clause was incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition, of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation. That objective is fundamentally at odds with the power the State asserts here to classify persons subject to its laws as nonetheless excepted from its protection.
Although the congressional debate concerning §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was limited, that debate clearly confirms the understanding that the phrase “within its jurisdiction” was intended in a broad sense to offer the guarantee of equal protection to all within a State’s boundaries, and to all upon whom the State would impose the obligations of its laws. Indeed, it appears from those debates that Congress, by using the phrase “person within its jurisdiction,” sought expressly to ensure that the equal protection of the laws was provided to the alien population. Representative Bingham reported to the House the draft resolution of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction (H. R. 63) that was to become the Fourteenth Amendment. Cong. Globe, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033 (1866). Two days later, Bingham posed the following question in support of the resolution:
“Is it not essential to the unity of the people that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life and liberty and property?” Id., at 1090.
Senator Howard, also a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, and the floor manager of the Amendment in the Senate, was no less explicit about the broad objectives of the Amendment, and the intention to make its provisions applicable to all who “may happen to be” within the jurisdiction of a State:
“The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction” Id., at 2766 (emphasis added).
Use of the phrase “within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State’s civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction — either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States — he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.
Our conclusion that the illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases may claim the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection only begins the inquiry. The more difficult question is whether the Equal Protection Clause has been violated by the refusal of the State of Texas to reimburse local school boards for the education of children who cannot demonstrate that their presence within the United States is lawful, or by the imposition by those school boards of the burden of tuition on. those children. It is to this question that we now turn.
HH HH
The Equal Protection Clause directs that “all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.” F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415 (1920). But so too, “[t]he Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the.same.” Tigner v. Texas, 310 U. S. 141, 147 (1940). The initial discretion to determine what is “different” and what is “the same” resides in the legislatures of the States. A legislature must have substantial latitude to establish classifications that roughly approximate the nature of the problem perceived, that accommodate competing concerns both public and private, and that account for limitations on the practical ability of the State to remedy every ill. In applying the Equal Protection Clause to most forms of state action, we thus seek only the assurance that the classification at issue bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose.
But we would not be faithful to our obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment if we applied so deferential a standard to every classification. The Equal Protection Clause was intended as a restriction on state legislative action inconsistent with elemental constitutional premises. Thus we have treated as presumptively invidious those classifications that disadvantage a “suspect class,” or that impinge upon the exercise of a “fundamental right.” With respect to such classifications, it is appropriate to enforce the mandate of equal protection by requiring the State to demonstrate that its classification has been precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. In addition, we have recognized that certain forms of legislative classification, while not facially invidious, nonetheless give rise to recurring constitutional difficulties; in these limited circumstances we have sought the assurance that the classification reflects a reasoned judgment consistent with the ideal of equal protection by inquiring whether it may fairly be viewed as furthering a substantial interest of the State. We turn to a consideration of the standard appropriate for the evaluation of §21.031.
A
Sheer incapability or lax enforcement of the laws barring entry into this country, coupled with the failure to establish an effective bar to the employment of undocumented aliens, has resulted in the creation of a substantial “shadow population” of illegal migrants — numbering in the millions —within our borders. This situation raises the specter of a permanent caste of undocumented resident aliens, encouraged by some to remain here as a source of cheap labor, but nevertheless denied the benefits that our society makes available to citizens and lawful residents. The existence of such an underclass presents most difficult problems for a Nation that prides itself on adherence to principles of equality under law.
The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants. At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their “parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms,” and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State’s jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases “can affect neither their parents’ conduct nor their own status.” Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 770 (1977). Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent’s misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.
“[V]isiting. . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth and penalizing the . . . child is an ineffectual — as well as unjust — way of deterring the parent.” Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 175 (1972) (footnote omitted).
Of course, undocumented status is not irrelevant to any proper legislative goal. Nor is undocumented status an absolutely immutable characteristic since it is the product of conscious, indeed unlawful, action. But §21.031 is directed against children, and imposes its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control. It is thus difficult to conceive of a rational justification for penalizing these children for their presence within the United States. Yet that appears to be precisely the effect of § 21.031.
Public education is not a “right” granted to individuals by the Constitution. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 35 (1973). But neither is it merely some governmental “benefit” indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. Both the importance of education in maintaining our basic institutions, and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child, mark the distinction. The “American people have always regarded education and [the] acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 400 (1923). We have recognized “the public schools as a most vital civic institution for the preservation of a democratic system of government,” Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 230 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring), and as the primary vehicle for transmitting “the values on which our society rests.” Ambach v. Norwich, 441 U. S. 68, 76 (1979). “[A]s . . . pointed out early in our history,. . . some degree of education is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system if we are to preserve freedom and independence.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 221 (1972). And these historic “perceptions of the public schools as inculcating fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system have been confirmed by the observations of social scientists.” Ambach v. Norwich, supra, at 77. In addition, education provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all. In sum, education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society. We cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests.
In addition to the pivotal role of education in sustaining our political and cultural heritage, denial of education to some isolated group of children poses an affront to one of the goals of the Equal Protection Clause: the abolition of governmental barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit. Paradoxically, by depriving the children of any disfavored group of an education, we foreclose the means by which that group might raise the level of esteem in which it is held by the majority. But more directly, “education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at 221. Illiteracy is an enduring disability. The inability to read and write will handicap the individual deprived of a basic education each and every day of his life. The inestimable toll of that deprivation on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological well-being of the individual, and the obstacle it poses to individual achievement, make it most difficult to reconcile the cost or the principle of a status-based denial of basic education with the framework of equality embodied in the Equal Protection Clause. What we said 28 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), still holds true:
“Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Id., at 493.
B
These well-settled principles allow us to determine the proper level of deference to be afforded §21.031. Undocumented aliens cannot be treated as a suspect class because their presence in this country in violation of federal law is not a “constitutional irrelevancy.” Nor is education a fundamental right; a State need not justify by compelling necessity every variation in the manner in which education is provided to its population. See San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, supra, at 28-39. But more is involved in these cases than the abstract question whether §21.031 discriminates against a suspect class, or whether education is a fundamental right. Section 21.031 imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. The stigma of illiteracy will mark them for the rest of their lives. By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation. In determining the rationality of § 21.031, we may appropriately take into account its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children who are its victims. In light of these countervailing costs, the discrimination contained in §21.031 can hardly be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State.
t — < C
It is the State’s principal argument, and apparently the view of the dissenting Justices, that the undocumented status of these children vel non establishes a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that a State might choose to afford other residents. The State notes that while other aliens are admitted “on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under non-discriminatory laws,” Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 334 U. S. 410, 420 (1948), the asserted right of these children to an education can claim no implicit congressional imprimatur. Indeed, in the State’s view, Congress’ apparent disapproval of the presence of these children within the United States, and the evasion of the federal regulatory program that is the mark of undocumented status, provides authority for its decision to impose upon them special disabilities. Faced with an equal protection challenge respecting the treatment of aliens, we agree that the courts must be attentive to congressional policy; the exercise of congressional power might well affect the State’s prerogatives to afford differential treatment to a particular class of aliens. But we are unable to find in the congressional immigration scheme any statement of policy that might weigh significantly in arriving at an equal protection balance concerning the State’s authority to deprive these children of an education.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Art. I., § 8, cl. 4. Drawing upon this power, upon its plenary authority with respect to foreign relations and international commerce, and upon the inherent power of a sovereign to close its borders, Congress has developed a complex scheme governing admission to our Nation and status within our borders. See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67 (1976); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 588-589 (1952). The obvious need for delicate policy judgments has counseled the Judicial Branch to avoid intrusion into this field. Mathews, supra, at 81. But this traditional caution does not persuade us that unusual deference must be shown the classification embodied in §21.031. The States enjoy no power with respect to the classification of aliens. See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 (1941). This power is “committed to the political branches of the Federal Government.” Mathews, 426 U. S., at 81. Although it is “a routine and normally legitimate part” of the business of the Federal Government to classify on the basis of alien status, id., at 85, and to “take into account the character of the relationship between the alien and this country,” id., at 80, only rarely are such matters relevant to legislation by a State. See Id., at 84-85; Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U. S. 1, 7, n. 8 (1977).
As we recognized in De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351 (1976), the States do have some authority to act with respect to illegal aliens, at least where such action mirrors federal objectives and furthers a legitimate state goal. In De Canos, the State’s program reflected Congress’ intention to bar from employment all aliens except those possessing a grant of permission to work in this country. Id., at 361. In contrast, there is no indication that the disability imposed by §21.031 corresponds to any identifiable congressional policy. The State does not claim that the conservation of state educational resources was ever a congressional concern in restricting immigration. More importantly, the classification reflected in §21.031 does not operate harmoniously within the federal program.
To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1251, 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. See, e. g., 8 U. S. C. §§1252, 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). In light of the discretionary federal power to grant relief from deportation, a State cannot realistically determine that any particular undocumented child will in fact be deported until after deportation proceedings have been completed. It would of course be most difficult for the State to justify a denial of education to a child enjoying an inchoate federal permission to remain.
We are reluctant to impute to Congress the intention to withhold from these children, for so long as they are present in this country through no fault of their own, access to a basic education. In other contexts, undocumented status, coupled with some articulable federal policy, might enhance state authority with respect to the treatment of undocumented aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the present legislative record, we perceive no national policy that supports the State in denying these children an elementary education. The State may borrow the federal classification. But to justify its use as a criterion for its own discriminatory policy, the State must demonstrate that the classification is reasonably adapted to “the purposes for which the state desires to use it.” Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633, 664-665 (1948) (Murphy, J., concurring) (emphasis added). We therefore turn to the state objectives that are said to support § 21.031.
V
Appellants argue that the classification at issue furthers an interest in the “preservation of the state’s limited resources for the education of its lawful residents.” Brief for Appellants 26. Of course, a concern for the preservation of resources standing alone can hardly justify the classification used in allocating those resources. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 374-375 (1971). The State must do more than justify its classification with a concise expression of an intention to discriminate. Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572, 605 (1976). Apart from the asserted state prerogative to act against undocumented children solely on the basis of their undocumented status — an asserted prerogative that carries only minimal force in the circumstances of these cases — we discern three colorable state interests that might support §21.031.
First, appellants appear to suggest that the State may seek to protect itself from an influx of illegal immigrants. While a State might have an interest in mitigating the potentially harsh economic effects of sudden shifts in population, §21.031 hardly offers an effective method of dealing with an urgent demographic or economic problem. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the State’s economy. To the contrary, the available evidence suggests that illegal aliens underutilize public services, while contributing their labor to the local economy and tax money to the state fisc. 458 F. Supp., at 578; 501 F. Supp., at 570-571. The dominant incentive for illegal entry into the State of Texas is the availability of employment; few if any illegal immigrants come to this country, or presumably to the State of Texas, in order to avail themselves of a free education. Thus, even making the doubtful assumption that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy of the State is negative, we think it clear that “[c]harging tuition to undocumented children constitutes a ludicrously ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration,” at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens. 458 F. Supp., at 585. See 628 F. 2d, at 461; 501 F. Supp., at 579, and n. 88.
Second, while it is apparent that a State may “not... reduce expenditures for education by barring [some arbitrarily chosen class of] children from its schools,” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 633 (1969), appellants suggest that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State’s ability to provide high-quality public education. But the record in no way supports the claim that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. As the District Court in No. 80-1934 noted, the State failed to offer any “credible supporting evidence that a proportionately small diminution of the funds spent on each child [which might result from devoting some state funds to the education of the excluded group] will have a grave impact on the quality of education.” 501 F. Supp., at 583. And, after reviewing the State’s school financing mechanism, the District Court in No. 80-1538 concluded that barring undocumented children from local schools would not necessarily improve the quality of education provided in those schools. 458 F. Supp., at 577. Of course, even if improvement in the quality of education were a likely result of barring some number of children from the schools of the State, the State must support its selection of this group as the appropriate target for exclusion. In terms of educational cost and need, however, undocumented children are “basically indistinguishable” from legally resident alien children. Id., at 589; 501 F. Supp., at 583, and n. 104.
Finally, appellants suggest that undocumented children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence within the United States renders them less likely than other children to remain within the boundaries of the State, and to put their education to productive social or political use within the State. Even assuming that such an interest is legitimate, it is an interest that is most difficult to quantify. The State has no assurance that any child, citizen or not, will employ the education provided by the State within the confines of the State’s borders. In any event, the record is clear that many of the undocumented children disabled by this classification will remain in this country indefinitely, and that some will become lawful residents or citizens of the United States. It is difficult to understand precisely what the State hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime. It is thus clear that whatever savings might be achieved by denying these children an education, they are wholly insubstantial in light of the costs involved to these children, the State, and the Nation.
VI
If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is
Affirmed.
That section provides, in pertinent part:
“(a) All children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens and who are over the age of five years and under the age of 21 years on the first day of September of any scholastic year shall be entitled to the benefits of the Available School Fund for that year.
“(b) Every child in this state who is a citizen of the United States or a legally admitted alien and who is over the age of five years and not over the age of 21 years on the first day of September of the year in which admission is sought shall be permitted to attend the public free schools of the district in which he resides or in which his parent, guardian, or the person having lawful control of him resides at the time he applies for admission.
“(c) The board of trustees of any public free school district of this state shall admit into the public free schools of the district free of tuition all persons who are either citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens and who are over five and not over 21 years of age at the beginning of the scholastic year if such person or his parent, guardian or person having lawful control resides within the school district.”
Despite the enactment of § 21.031 in 1975, the School District had continued to enroll undocumented children free of charge until the 1977-1978 school year. In July 1977, it adopted a policy requiring undocumented children to pay a “full tuition fee” in order to enroll. Section 21.031 had not provided a definition of “a legally admitted alien.” Tyler offered the following clarification:
“A legally admitted alien is one who has documentation that he or she is legally in the United States, or a person who is in the process of securing documentation from the United States Immigration Service, and the Service will state that the person is being processed and will be admitted with proper documentation.” App. to Juris. Statement in No. 80-1538, p. A-38.
The court contrasted this group with those illegal aliens who entered the country alone in order to earn money to send to their dependents in Mexico, and who in many instances remained in this country for only a short period of time. 458 F. Supp., at 578.
Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Gilbert Cardenas, testified that “fifty to sixty per cent... of current legal alien workers were formerly illegal aliens.” Id., at 577. A defense witness, Rolan Heston, District Director of the Houston District of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, testified that “undocumented children can and do live in the United States for years, and adjust their status through marriage to a citizen or permanent resident.” Ibid. The court also took notice of congressional proposals to “legalize” the status of many unlawful entrants. Id., at 577-578. See also n. 17, infra.
The court found § 21.031 inconsistent with the scheme of national regulation under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and with federal laws pertaining to funding and discrimination in education. The court distinguished De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351 (1976), by emphasizing that the state bar on employment of illegal aliens involved in that case mirrored precisely the federal policy, of protecting the domestic labor market, underlying the immigration laws. The court discerned no express federal policy to bar illegal immigrants from education. 458 F. Supp., at 590-592.
The Court of Appeals noted that De Canas v. Bica, supra, had not foreclosed all state regulation with respect to illegal aliens, and found no express or implied congressional policy favoring the education of illegal aliens. The court therefore concluded that there was no pre-emptive conflict between state and federal law. 628 F. 2d, at 451-454.
The court concluded that §21.031 was not pre-empted by federal laws or international agreements. 501 F. Supp., at 584-596.
Appellees in both cases continue to press the argument that § 21.031 is pre-empted by federal law and policy. In light of our disposition of the Fourteenth Amendment issue, we have no occasion to reach this claim.
It would be incongruous to hold that the United States, to which the Constitution assigns a broad authority over both naturalization and foreign affairs, is barred from invidious discrimination with respect to unlawful aliens, while exempting the States from a similar limitation. See 426 U. S., at 84-86.
Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “[a]ll persons bom or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term “jurisdiction” was used. He further noted that it was “impossible to construe the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words ‘within its jurisdiction,’ in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons ‘within the jurisdiction’ of one of the States of the Union are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ ” Id., at 687.
Justice Gray concluded that “[ejvery citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment “jurisdiction” can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouvé, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 426-427 (1912).
In his separate opinion, Justice Field addressed the relationship between the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments:
“The term ‘person,’ used in the Fifth Amendment, is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic. A resident, alien born, is entitled to the same protection under the laws that a citizen is entitled to. He owes obedience to the laws of the country in which he is domiciled, and, as a consequence, he is entitled to the equal protection of those laws. . . . The contention that persons within the territorial jurisdiction of this republic might be beyond the protection of the law was heard with pain on the argument at the bar — in face of the great constitutional amendment which declares that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S., at 242-243 (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U. S. 185 (1958), relied on by appellants, is not to the contrary. In that case the Court held, as a matter of status tory construction, that an alien paroled into the United States pursuant to § 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1182(d)(5) (1952 ed.), was not “within the United States” for the purpose of availing herself of § 243(h), which authorized the withholding of deportation in certain circumstances. The conclusion reflected the longstanding distinction between exclusion proceedings, involving the determination of admissibility, and deportation proceedings. The undocumented children who are ap-pellees here, Unlike the parolee in Leng May Ma, supra, could apparently be removed from the country only pursuant to deportation proceedings. 8 U. S. C. § 1251(a)(2). See 1A C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure §3.16b, p. 3-161 (1981).
Representative Bingham’s views are also reflected in his comments on the Civil Rights Bill of 1866. He repeatedly referred to the need to provide protection, not only to the freedmen, but to “the alien and stranger,” and to “refugees . . . and all men.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1292 (1866).
Several formulations might explain our treatment of certain classifications as “suspect.” Some classifications are more likely than others to reflect deep-seated prejudice rather than legislative rationality in pursuit of some legitimate objective. Legislation predicated on such prejudice is easily recognized as incompatible with the constitutional understanding that each person is to be judged individually and is entitled to equal justice under the law. Classifications treated as suspect tend to be irrelevant to any proper legislative goal. See McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 192 (1964); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100 (1943). Finally, certain groups, indeed largely the same groups, have historically been “relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.” San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 28 (1973); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 372 (1971); see United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152-153, n. 4 (1938). The experience of our Nation has shown that prejudice may manifest itself in the treatment of some groups. Our response to that experience is reflected in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Legislation imposing special disabilities upon groups disfavored by virtue of circumstances beyond their control suggests the kind of “class or caste” treatment that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to abolish.
In determining whether a class-based denial of a particular right is deserving of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, we look to the Constitution to see if the right infringed has its source, explicitly or implicitly, therein. But we have also recognized the fundamentally of participation in state “elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction,” Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 336 (1972), even though “the right to vote, per se, is not a constitutionally protected right." San Antonio Independent School Dist., supra, at 35, n. 78. With respect to suffrage, we have explained the need for strict scrutiny as arising from the significance of the franchise as the guardian of all other rights. See Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 667 (1966); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 562 (1964); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 370 (1886).
See Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190 (1976); Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U. S. 259 (1978). This technique of “intermediate” scrutiny permits us to evaluate the rationality of the legislative judgment with reference to well-settled constitutional principles. “In expounding the Constitution, the Court’s role is to discern ‘principles sufficiently absolute to give them roots throughout the community and continuity over significant periods of time, and to lift them above the level of the pragmatic political judgments of a particular time and place.’ ” University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 299 (1978) (opinion of POWELL, J.), quoting A. Cox, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government 114 (1976). Only when concerns sufficiently absolute and enduring can be clearly ascertained from the Constitution and our cases do we employ this standard to aid us in determining the rationality of the legislative choice.
The Attorney General recently estimated the number of illegal aliens within the United States at between 3 and 6 million. In presenting to both the Senate and House of Representatives several Presidential proposals for reform of the immigration laws — including one to “legalize” many of the illegal entrants currently residing in the United States by creating for them a special status under the immigration laws — the Attorney General noted that this subclass is largely composed of persons with a permanent attachment to the Nation, and that they are unlikely to be displaced from our territory:
“We have neither the resources, the capability, nor the motivation to uproot and deport millions of illegal aliens, many of whom have become, in effect, members of the community. By granting limited legal status to the productive and law-abiding members of this shadow population, we will recognize reality and devote our enforcement resources to deterring future illegal arrivals.” Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1981) (testimony of William French Smith, Attorney General).
As the District Court observed in No. 80-1538, the confluence of Government policies has resulted in “the existence of a large number of employed illegal aliens, such as the parents of plaintiffs in this case, whose presence is tolerated, whose employment is perhaps even welcomed, but who are virtually defenseless against any abuse, exploitation, or callous neglect to which the state or the state’s natural citizens and business organizations may wish to subject them.” 458 F. Supp., at 585.
We reject the claim that “illegal aliens” are a “suspect class.” No case in which we have attempted to define a suspect class, see, e. g., n. 14, supra, has addressed the status of persons unlawfully in our country. Unlike most of the classifications that we have recognized as suspect, entry into this class, by virtue of entry into this country, is the product of voluntary action. Indeed, entry into the class is itself a crime. In addition, it could hardly be suggested that undocumented status is a “constitutional irrelevancy.” With respect to the actions of the Federal Government, alien-age classifications may be intimately related to the conduct of foreign policy, to the federal prerogative to control access to the United States, and to the plenary federal power to determine who has sufficiently manifested his allegiance to become a citizen of the Nation. No State may independently exercise a like power. But if the Federal Government has by uniform rule prescribed what it believes to be appropriate standards for the treatment of an alien subclass, the States may, of course, follow the federal direction. See De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351 (1976).
Because the State does not afford noncitizens the right to vote, and may bar noncitizens from participating in activities at the heart of its political community, appellants argue that denial of a basic education to these children is of less significance than the denial to some other group. Whatever the current status of these children, the courts below concluded that many will remain here permanently and that some indeterminate number will eventually become citizens. The fact that many will not is not decisive, even with respect to the importance of education to participation in core political institutions. “[T]he benefits of education are not reserved to those whose productive utilization of them is a certainty . . . .” 458 F. Supp., at 581, n. 14. In addition, although a noncitizen “may be barred from full involvement in the political arena, he may play a role — perhaps even a leadership role — in other areas of import to the community.” Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U. S. 1, 12 (1977). Moreover, the significance of education to our society is not limited to its political and cultural fruits. The public schools are an important socializing institution, imparting those shared values thróugh which social order and stability are maintained.
If the constitutional guarantee of equal protection was available only to those upon whom Congress affirmatively granted its benefit, the State’s argument would be virtually unanswerable. But the Equal Protection Clause operates of its own force to protect anyone “within [the State’s] jurisdiction” from the State’s arbitrary action. See Part II, supra. The question we examine in text is whether the federal disapproval of the presence of these children assists the State in overcoming the presumption that denial of education to innocent children is not a rational response to legitimate state concerns.
Appellant School District sought at oral argument to characterize the alienage classification contained in §21.031 as simply a test of residence. We are unable to uphold § 21.031 on that basis. Appellants conceded that if, for example, a Virginian or a legally admitted Mexican citizen entered Tyler with his school-age children, intending to remain only six months, those children would be viewed as residents entitled to attend Tyler schools. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31-32. It is thus clear that Tyler’s residence argument amounts to nothing more than the assertion that illegal entry, without more, prevents a person from becoming a resident for purposes of enrolling his children in the public schools. A State may not, however, accomplish what would otherwise be prohibited by the Equál Protection Clause, merely by defining a disfavored group as nonresident. And illegal entry into the country would not, under traditional criteria, bar a person from obtaining domicile within a State. C. Bouvé, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 340 (1912). Appellants have not shown that the families of undocumented children do not comply with the established standards by which the State historically tests residence. Apart from the alienage limitation, § 21.031(b) requires a school district to provide education only to resident children. The school districts of the State are as free to apply to undocumented children established criteria for determining residence as they are to apply those criteria to any other child who seeks admission.
Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without any power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. See De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S., at 354-356.
The courts below noted the ineffectiveness of the Texas provision as a means of controlling the influx of illegal entrants into the State. See 628 F. 2d, at 460-461; 458 F. Supp., at 585; 501 F. Supp., at 578 (“The evidence demonstrates that undocumented persons do not immigrate in search for a free public education. Virtually all of the undocumented persons who come into this country seek employment opportunities and not educational benefits. . . . There was overwhelming evidence ... of the unimportance of public education as a stimulus for immigration”) (footnote omitted).
Nor does the record support the claim that the educational resources of the State are so direly limited that some form of “educational triage” might be deemed a reasonable (assuming that it were a permissible) response to the State’s problems. Id., at 579-581.
I use the term “citizen” advisedly. The right to vote, of course, is a political interest of concern to citizens. The right to an education, in contrast, is a social benefit of relevance to a substantial number of those affected by Texas’ statutory scheme, as is discussed below. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the federal agency involved in the administrative action that occurred prior to the onset of litigation. If the administrative action occurred in a state agency, respond "State Agency". Do not code the name of the state. The administrative activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. If two federal agencies are mentioned, consider the one whose action more directly bears on the dispute;otherwise the agency that acted more recently. If a state and federal agency are mentioned, consider the federal agency. Pay particular attention to the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations. | What is the agency involved in the administrative action? | [
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bureau of Prisons",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner or Collector of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Administrative agency established under an interstate compact (except for the MTC)",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration or Board of Veterans' Appeals",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"State Agency",
"Unidentifiable",
"Office of Thrift Supervision",
"Department of Homeland Security",
"Board of General Appraisers",
"Board of Tax Appeals",
"General Land Office or Commissioners",
"NO Admin Action",
"Processing Tax Board of Review"
] | [
116
] | sc |
FLEMMING, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, v. FLORIDA CITRUS EXCHANGE et al.
No. 27.
Argued November 17, 1958.
Decided December 15, 1958.
William W. Goodrich argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briéf were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Anderson and Beatrice Rosenberg.
J. Hardin Peterson argued the cause and filed a brief for the Florida Citrus Exchange et al., respondents.
/. Lewis Hall argued the cause for Schell, respondent. With him on the brief was Morris E. White.
Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of Florida, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Commercially grown Florida and Texas oranges have for many years been colored with a red coal-tar color. In 1939 the Food and Drug Administration, after testing and pursuant to § 406 (b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, certified this color, FD&C Red No. 32 (hereafter Red 32), to be harmless and suitable for use in food. However, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, on November 10,1955, ordered Red 32 and two other coal-tar colors to be removed from the certified list, after new tests in 1951-1953 cast doubt whether Red 32 was harmless, and after public hearings were held upon the matter on notice published in the Federal Register. The consequence of the Secretary’s order was that under § 402 (c) of the Act any food bearing or containing such colors would be deemed to be adulterated.
The validity of the Secretary’s order was attacked in petitions under § 701 (f) of the Act filed in several Courts of Appeals by persons and organizations claiming to be adversely affected. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sustained the order against a general attack. Certified Color Industry Comm. v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 236 P. 2d 866. In the instant case, however, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, by a divided vote, set aside the order insofar as it removed the certification of Red 32 as harmless and suitable for use as external coloring on Florida and Texas oranges. 246 F. 2d 850.
The Secretary did not determine that Red 32 in the quantities used in color-added oranges was harmful for human consumption, but rather determined on the basis of the 1951-1953 tests only that Red 32 and the other suspect coal-tar colors were toxic and therefore not “harmless and suitable for use in food.” The Court of Appeals held that the 1939 finding that Red 32 was harmless “should not be supplanted” by a contrary finding “unless there is evidence that, in the amounts used, and in the manner of use, oranges colored with Red 32 are unsafe for human consumption.” 246 F. 2d, at 861-862. The word “harmless” was construed to be a term “of relation,” preventing the Secretary from denying the continued use of Red 32 in the quantities used in color-added oranges in the absence of evidence that such quantities could not be consumed “without risk of injury or harm.” Id., at 858. The Court of Appeals held further that in light of its premise that “harmless” was a term of relation and because two congressional Committees had found that the practice of adding the color to oranges was an economic necessity, it would be incumbent upon the Secretary to determine whether the use of the color was “required in the production” of food within the meaning of § 406 (a), and if so, to promulgate a safe tolerance for Red 32 on oranges pursuant to that section. Until such a tolerance was promulgated, the court held that the Secretary was required to certify Red 32 as a safe color for use on oranges without one. Id., at 860-862. We granted certiorari to determine this controversial question of construction of this important statute designed for the protection of the public health. 356 U. S. 911.
Senate and House Committees have reported that the practice of adding color is an economic necessity in the production of Florida and Texas oranges for market. When mature oranges are removed from the tree, their skins, for botanical reasons unnecessary to detail here, are frequently green in color. Since the consumer would be prone incorrectly to interpret this greenness as a sign of immaturity, oranges are put through a “degreening” process which involves exposure to ethylene gas. In the case of certain California oranges, this gas process is sufficient to turn a green orange into one of the desired orange color. But the degreening process does not produce the desired color in Florida and Texas oranges; a light yellow shade results. The more desired color is therefore produced by immersing the oranges in, or spraying them with, a solution containing Red 32. The evidence at the hearings held by the Secretary was that the process infuses the peel of an orange with 0.0017% to 0.0034% of Red 32. Other evidence indicated that oranges taken as a whole, and candied peel, marmalade and orange juice would contain less — in many cases, much less — of the coal-tar color. It is conceded by the Secretary that there is no evidence that the level of ingestion of Red 32 involved in human consumption of color-added oranges is harmful.
However, the evidence at the Secretary’s hearing did indicate that Red 32 had a poisonous effect on animals. Feeding the color to rats in quantities as small as 0.1% of their diet was deleterious and often fatal, with liver damage and enlargement of the heart in evidence. In larger quantities, 1.0% and 2.0% of the diet, ingestion of Red 32 by rats caused death within twelve days and a week, respectively. The health of dogs taking 0.2% of the color in their diets deteriorated rapidly; that of those taking 0.04% somewhat more slowly, but definitely; and ill effects were indicated at a feeding level as low as 0.01% of the diet. No safe level of administration of Red 32 to the test animals was established. These and similar tests, involving the administration of Red 32 and the other coal-tar colors involved to test animals generally as an item of diet, were the basis on which the Secretary’s order rested.
The Secretary argues that the legislative history and the consistent administrative interpretation of the Act establish that his authority to list or continue the listing of coal-tar colors is confined to his authority under § 406 (b) to certify “harmless” coal-tar colors, those which are wholly innocuous and demonstrated to be without adverse physiological effect. The argument runs that a toxic coal-tar color, such as the Court of Appeals agreed that Red 32 was, was to be prohibited completely without regard to whether it might possibly be used in safe amounts on a particular food product. The Secretary argues further that since Congress made known its will specifically and precisely in § 406 (b) that a toxic coal-tar color, that is, one not “harmless,” was not to be certified under any circumstances, the tolerance provisions of § 406 (a) have no relevance to the validity of his order.
We are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals erred and that its judgment cannot stand.
First. The provisions of §§402 (c) and 406 (b) dealing expressly with coal-tar colors were innovations in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938; there were no counterpart provisions in the original 1906 food and drug legislation. By these provisions, Congress carefully distinguished the treatment to be given by the Secretary to toxic coal-tar colors. The original Act dealt generally with poisonous and other deleterious substances in food, as are now treated under § 402 (a), but it did not deal specifically with coal-tar colors. Section 7 of the original Food and Drugs Act, 34 Stat. 769, provided that an article of food should be deemed adulterated “If it contain any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient which may render such article injurious to health . . . .” This Court held in United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co., 232 U. S. 399, following the “plain meaning” of the statutory language, that this placed the burden upon the Government of establishing that the added substance was such as might render the food to which it was added injurious to health. This rule applied without distinction where coal-tar colors were involved. Congress was aware of the difficulties of this test which required that the questioned food product be evaluated as a whole, and of the existence in this area of an informal certification practice under the 1906 Act under which not food products but the coal-tar colors themselves were subjected to test to determine their poisonous or harmful character. Cf. S. Rep. No. 361, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 7-8. Of course, when litigation occurred, the Lexington. Mill standard was applied. See W. B. Wood Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 286 F. 84, 86-87.
It was against this background that the 1938 statute was proposed and enacted. It is obvious to us that an approach different from the rule in Lexington Mill was intended by Congress when in § 402 (c) and § 406 (b) it addressed itself to the severable and narrow problem of coal-tar colors. The- language involved in Lexington Mill survived generally in the Act’s broadest and most general test of food adulteration, § 402 (a)(1), Section 402 (c) provided a separate test: that a food should be deemed adulterated “If it bears or contains a coal-tar color other than one from a batch that has been certified in accordance with regulations as provided by section 406 . . . .” Plainly Congress banned any addition to foods of coal-tar colors not certified by the Secretary. The standard established for the Secretary was set forth in § 406 (b): “The Secretary shall promulgate regulations providing for the listing of coal-tar colors which are harmless and suitable for use in food and for the certification of batches of such colors . . . There appears in Senator Copeland’s memorandum on the first of the bills which led to the 1938 Act, S. 1944, 73d Cong., Ist Sess., which contained new provisions on coal-tar colors similar to the ones in the Act as finally passed, a clear indication that one of the purposes of these provisions was to do away, in this area, with the Lexington Mill approach. 77 Cong. Rec. 5721. This had the effect of making the certification system, in which analysis concentrated on the color substances themselves, rather than an examination of the effect of the use of the colors in the context of the food products involved, the conclusive test of adulteration. Thus it is that the test of certification laid down in § 406 (b) concentrates on the color substance itself; it is to be listed only if it is harmless. The Secretary is to address himself to the harmless character of the substance first; once this is assured, the statutory plan is that it may be freely used in foods, subject to the provisions of the other sections of the Act. Clearly such a plan is a rational one to ascribe to Congress. It is true that the ultimate purpose here concerned of the adulteration provisions of the Act is to protect health, and that no one makes the color substances by themselves an item of diet. But it certainly was competent for Congress, in the light of what were recognized problems to health in the use of such added colors, to adopt a rule of caution in treating this recognized and definable problem area. This rule of caution is here one which relieves the Secretary from the burden of showing in each case that a food containing them raises a possibility of injury to health, and requires that the color stuffs, whose positive values are only visual and which are not naturally found in foods, not be added unless they could pass a higher standard.
The significance of such an approach is demonstrated here. No safe level for ingestion of Red 32 has been established, either in respect of humans or of animals. No one contends that it is impossible that ill effects will be experienced in human beings if unrestricted use of the substance is permitted in articles of food. On the other hand, no instance of a harmful use of Red 32 in a particular food was established in the record. These questions present broad inquiries, difficult of proof, and doubtless apt to be more long-drawn-out in investigation than even the ones which the Secretary pursued. Yet it has been shown that the color of itself has poisonous properties. In the light of the over-all purpose of the Act, cf. United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277, 280, and the specific terms here involved, it seems to us that Congress did not intend that a verdict of “not proven” on the questions mentioned should preclude the Government from preventing the use of substances like the one in question when they were shown to have poisonous effects by themselves.
We are not persuaded by the respondents’ argument, adopted by the Court of Appeals, that the words “harmless” and “poisonous” are relative words, referring not to the effect of a substance in vacuo, but to its effect, taken in a particular way and in particular quantities, on an organic system. Of course this is so, but the question before us certainly does not depend on it. This is not a case like the examples put which remind us that pure water would be deleterious if taken at the rate of four gallons an hour or common table salt at several ounces. The color substances appear to have been administered at toxicologically significant levels; they played a relatively small part in the diets of the test animals, generally less, and frequently much less, than 1%. Obviously if the color substances themselves are made an item of diet in the trifling percentages used on the test animals, their effect is poisonous. Congress may have intended “harmless” in a relative sense, but we think it was in relation to such laboratory tests as the ones the Secretary performed that Congress was speaking when it required that coal-tar colors be “harmless.” We do not believe that Congress required the Secretary first to attempt to analyze the uses being made of the colors in the market place, and then feed them experimentally only in the proportions in which they appeared in certain of the food products in which the colors were used. This appears to be the very procedure on which Congress turned its back in the 1938 Act.
The respondents contend that since the Secretary himself maintains various lists of certified colors, one containing colors harmless and suitable for all food, drug and cosmetic uses, another of colors harmless and suitable for general use in drugs and cosmetics, and a third of colors harmless and suitable for external use in drugs and cosmetics, 21 CFR §§ 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, he has recognized that “harmless,” as used in the statute, does not bear the “absolute” meaning he is alleged to give it. From this it is said to follow that the Secretary must, in forbidding the use of colors in foods, restrict his prohibition to specific food uses in which the color is shown to be capable of a deleterious effect. We do not draw this inference. Provisions similar to those dealing with the use of coal-tar colors in foods are repeated in the portions of the Act dealing with drugs and with cosmetics. Section 501 (a)(4), 52 Stat. 1049, 21 U. S. C. §351 (a)(4), proscribes the use of uncertified colors in drugs for the purpose of coloring, and refers to § 504, 52 Stat. 1052, 21 U. S. C. § 354, which authorizes the listing and certification of coal-tar colors which are "harmless and suitable for use in drugs.” Comparable provisions are found with respect to cosmetics in §§ 601 (e) and 604, 52 Stat. 1054, 1055, 21 U. S. C. §§ 361 (e), 364. It is clear from these provisions that Congress contemplated that a color might be harmless in respect of drugs or cosmetics but not of foods. And the fact that the Secretary has established a further category, distinguishing between colors intended for external and for general use, we do not think inconsistent with our interpretation of the Act. These distinctions can be established through tests run on the color substance as such, in the way in which the Secretary has conducted the tests in the matter before us. It is a far cry from saying that the Act permits a generic distinction capable of laboratory proof, between external and internal uses of a color, to say that it commands that the colors cannot be inquired of at all except in the specific contexts of their use in food, drug and cosmetic products.
Second. But even if the Secretary’s approach of viewing the harmlessness of coal-tar colors in terms of the colors themselves, rather than in their specific applications, is correct, the respondents insist, as the court below indicated, that the Secretary should establish tolerances for the use of colors in food, even though not found to be “harmless.” The respondents point to § 406 (a) of the Act which allows the Secretary to establish tolerances for poisonous substances added to food where the substance is “required in the production” of the food or “cannot be avoided by good manufacturing practice.” They argue that this provision should be used by the Secretary to establish a maximum tolerance for the application of Red 32 to the skins of oranges, either because it applies by its own terms or it is applicable by analogy. The Secretary contends that he is without power to permit the use of harmful coal-tar colors in specific foods through a system of tolerances. We believe he is correct.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is a detailed and thorough piece of legislation. Its treatment of many public health and food problems is quite specific, and of course it is the duty of the courts in construing it to be mindful of its approach in terms of draftsmanship. Here again, in our construction of this explicit Act, we must be sensitive to what Congress has written, and recall that “It is for us to ascertain — neither to add nor to subtract, neither to delete nor to distort.” 62 Cases of Jam v. United States, 340 U. S. 593, 596. Section 406 (a), which provides for the system of tolerances, constitutes by its terms a definition of the term “unsafe,” which appears in § 402 (a) (2), a prohibition on foods which bear or contain “any added poisonous or added deleterious substance . . . which is unsafe within the meaning of section 406.” This is a prohibition entirely separate and distinct from the prohibitions of § 402 (c) on foods containing or bearing uncertified coal-tar colors. The existence of a tolerance is specifically stated in § 406 (a) only to give sanction to what would otherwise amount to adulteration within the terms of § 402 (a)(1). Accordingly, it is obvious from the language of the statute that the provisions authorizing the establishment of tolerances apply only to § 402 (a)(1) and (2) and do not apply to § 402 (c)’s flat prohibition against the use of uncertified colors. Respondents do not direct us to any substantial contrary indication in the legislative history. Nor can the tolerance provisions be applied to coal-tar colors through some form of analogy. The command of the statute is plain: where a coal-tar color is not harmless, it is not to be certified; if it is not certified, it is not to be used at all. In this regard also, an approach in terms of the toxicity of the coloring ingredient, rather than of the food product as a whole was chosen by Congress. It evidently took the view that unless coal-tar colors were harmless, the considerations of the benefits of visual appeal that might be urged in favor of their use should not prevail, in the light of the considerations of the public health. In the case of other sorts of added poisons, though only where they were required in the production of the food concerned or could not under good manufacturing practice be avoided, a different congressional policy was expressed in the 1938 enactment. It is the duty of the Secretary to give effect to this distinction; he has done so with apparent substantial uniformity and has done so here.
Third. After the promulgation of the Secretary’s order, Congress afforded temporary relief to those economically interested in the coloring of oranges with Red 32. Legislation was enacted in the summer of 1956 to afford a period of approximately three years (until March 1, 1959) during which use of the color would be allowed solely in application to the skins of oranges. The statute does not, in our view, affect the situation presented to the courts for judicial review; the Secretary’s order remains to be tested under the permanent provisions of the Act, insofar as they will affect respondents after March 1, 1959. The statute accordingly operates as a legislatively ordained stay of the Secretary’s order insofar as it affects the present respondents and those similarly situated. See H. R. Rep. No. 1982, p. 3, and S. Rep. No. 2391, p. 3, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. In view of the very temporary nature of this legislative “stay,” the automatic resumption of the status quo upon its expiration, and the effect of the order on the respondents, even during the legislative stay, we agree with the parties that the matter before us is not moot. The Secretary’s order was the promulgation of a general rule, prospective in operation, and the facts of the respondents’ business are such that if the order is upheld, there will be a practical effect on them even during the span of the temporary legislation. Accordingly, the respondents remain persons adversely affected by the Secretary’s order, and it is proper for us now to determine the legal situation in regard to them when the temporary legislation expires. Under the permanent provisions of §§ 402 and 406 the Secretary’s order was lawful, and the respondents present no grounds on which they can legally object to its application to them. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, setting the Secretary’s order aside in part, must be
Reversed.
The Act, as amended, is 52 Stat. 1040, 21 U. S. C. § 301 et seq. Section 406 (b), 52 Stat. 1049, 21 U. S. C. §346 (b) provides:
“The Secretary shall promulgate regulations providing for the listing of coal-tar colors which are harmless and suitable for use in food and for the certification of batches of such colors, with or without harmless diluents.”
Section 402 (c), 52 Stat. 1047, 21 U. S. C. §342 (c), provides that a food shall be deemed to be adulterated “If it bears or contains a coal-tar color other than one from a batch that has been certified in accordance with regulations as provided by section 406 . . . .”
Section 301 of the Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, or the receipt in interstate commerce, and the delivery thereof, of adulterated food, or the adulteration of food in interstate commerce. 52 Stat. 1042, 21 U. S. C. § 331. Sanctions for the prohibited acts, in the form of injunction proceedings, criminal prosecutions, and seizure actions, are provided in §§ 302-304, 52 Stat. 1043, 1044, 21 U. S. C. §§ 332-334.
“In a case of actual controversy as to the validity of any order under subsection (e), any person who will be adversely affected by such order if placed in effect may at any time prior to the ninetieth day after such order is issued file a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, for a judicial review of such order. The summons and petition may be served at any place in the United States. The Secretary, promptly upon service of the summons and petition, shall certify and file in the court the transcript of the proceedings and the record on which the Secretary based his order.” 52 Stat. 1055, 21 U. S. C. §371 (f).
Review was sought in three Courts of Appeals in all. In the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, a petition was dismissed before it was adjudicated.
The persons and firms who are respondents here are all engaged in the growing, packing or marketing of Florida or Texas oranges. One is also interested in the patented process whereby the Red 32 color is applied to the skins of oranges.
The Court of Appeals set aside the order:
“. . . in so far as said order removes the coal-tar color FD&C Red No. 32 from the list of colors which may be certified for use in coloring the skin of oranges meeting minimum maturity standards prescribed in the State of Florida and Texas; provided, that nothing herein or in the judgment of this Court entered pursuant hereto shall restore said coal-tar color to the list of colors which may be certified for unrestricted use in food, drugs and cosmetics but shall operate to authorize the certification of batches of said color conforming to the specifications for the color appearing at 21 C. F. R. 135.3 (1949 ed.) for the purpose of coloring the skin of mature oranges only; provided further, that the Secretary shall be required to certify only sufficient batches of FD&C Red No. 32 as may be necessary to color the skin of mature oranges from time to time; provided further, that the certificates issued for batches of FD&C Red No. 32 may be limited by their certificate for use in coloring mature oranges only; and provided further, that nothing herein or in the judgment of this Court entered pursuant hereto shall be deemed to restrict the Secretary from making further investigations and conducting hearings for a determination of whether the use of Red 32 is required in the production of oranges and to determine the tolerances, if any, that are safe and harmless, as harmless is herein construed and defined.” 246 F. 2d, at 862.
52 Stat. 1049, 21 U. S. C. § 346 (a), which provides:
“(a) Any poisonous or deleterious substance added to any food, except where such substance is required in the production thereof or cannot be avoided by good manufacturing practice shall be deemed to be unsafe for purposes of the application of clause (2) of section 402 (a); but when such substance is so required or cannot be so avoided, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations limiting the quantity therein or thereon to such extent as he finds necessary for the protection of public health, and any quantity exceeding the limits so fixed shall also be deemed to be unsafe for purposes of the application of clause (2) of section 402 (a). While such a regulation is in effect limiting the quantity of any such substance in the case of any food, such food shall not, by reason of bearing or containing any added amount of such substance, be considered to be adulterated within the meaning of clause (1) of section 402 (a). In determining the quantity of such added substance to be tolerated in or on different articles of food the Secretary shall take into account the extent to which the use of such substance is required or cannot be avoided in the production of each such article, and the other ways in which the consumer may be affected by the same or other poisonous or deleterious substances.”
S. Rep. No. 2391, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1; H. R. Rep. No. 1982, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2.
The 1938 enactment contained a proviso to § 402 (c) . . That this paragraph shall not apply to citrus fruit bearing or containing a coal-tar color if application for listing of such color has been made under this Act and such application has not been acted on by the Secretary, if such color was commonly used prior to the enactment of this Act for the purpose of coloring citrus fruit.” 52 Stat. 1047, 21 U. S. C. §342 (c). Respondents suggest that this proviso somehow suggests a congressional intent to deal with their color more leniently under the present circumstances, but we can draw no such inference.
Section 402 (a) (2), with its reference to § 406, see note 7, supra, revised the rule of the Lexington Mill case substantially in its own factual context, that of added poisonous substances in food. Section 402 (a) (2) has been the subject of subsequent revisions itself, the latest one of which is § 3 of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, Public Law 85-929, September 6, 1958, 72 Stat. 1784. See note 12, infra.
Considerably more of the color was regularly produced before the entry of the Secretary’s order than could be accounted for as actually being on the skins of oranges. Neither the Government nor the respondents account for the difference more than speculatively. The Government urges that the difference must have been used in other food products. Respondents emphasize the inevitable waste of quantities of the color during the orange-coloring process. To us this underlines the approach of the provisions in question; where a color is found to be harmless in itself, no further inquiry can be made of it; if it is harmful, none need be.
A single dose of 100 milligrams of the color substance (0.0035 oz. avoirdupois, or y3 the weight of a standard aspirin tablet) produced a rapid diarrheic effect in test dogs.
One respondent assails the validity, even within the framework of the Secretary’s interpretation of the statute, of the tests performed on the experimental animals. The Court of Appeals found that the evidence justified the Secretary’s finding that the color was poisonous, 246 F. 2d, at 859, and we are in agreement.
The Court of Appeals’ judgment had the effect of staying the Secretary’s order in toto as it affected orange coloring until he developed a tolerance. The Secretary argues here that even if he is authorized to establish a tolerance for the use of Red 32 on oranges, his order should stand until he has established it. In the view of the case that we take, we do not reach this contention.
The Act of July 9, 1956, c. 530, 70 Stat. 512, added the following proviso to §402 (c) of the Act:
“Provided further, That this paragraph shall not apply to oranges meeting minimum maturity standards established by or under the laws of the States in which the oranges were grown and not intended for processing (other than oranges designated by the trade as ‘packing house elimination’), the skins of which have been colored at any time prior to March 1, 1959, with the coal-tar color certified prior to the-enactment of this proviso as F. D. & C. Red 32, or certified after such enactment as External D. & C. Red 14 in accordance with section 21, Code of Federal Regulations, part 9: And provided further, That the preceding proviso shall have no further effect if prior to March 1, 1959, another coal-tar color suitable for coloring oranges is listed under section 406.” | 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. | What is the ideological direction of the decision? | [
"Conservative",
"Liberal",
"Unspecifiable"
] | [
0
] | sc |
CRANE v. KENTUCKY
No. 85-5238.
Argued April 23, 1986
Decided June 9, 1986
O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Frank W. Heft, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were J. David Niehaus and Daniel T. Goyette.
John S. Gillig, Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were David L. Armstrong, Attorney General, and Virgil W. Webb III, Assistant Attorney General.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Prior to his trial for murder, petitioner moved to suppress his confession. The trial judge conducted a hearing, determined that the confession was voluntary, and denied the motion. At trial, petitioner sought to introduce testimony about the physical and psychological environment in which the confession was obtained. His objective in so doing was to suggest that the statement was unworthy of belief. The trial court ruled that the testimony pertained solely to the issue of voluntariness and was therefore inadmissible. The question presented is whether this ruling deprived petitioner of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution.
I
On August 7, 1981, a clerk at the Keg Liquor Store in Louisville, Kentucky, was shot to death, apparently during the course of a robbery. A complete absence of identifying physical evidence hampered the initial investigation of the crime. A week later, however, the police arrested petitioner, then 16 years old, for his suspected participation in an unrelated service station holdup. According to police testimony at the suppression hearing, “just out of the clear blue sky,” petitioner began to confess to a host of local crimes, including shooting a police officer, robbing a hardware store, and robbing several individuals at a bowling alley. App. 4. Their curiosity understandably aroused, the police transferred petitioner to a juvenile detention center to continue the interrogation. After initially denying any involvement in the Keg Liquors shooting, petitioner eventually confessed to that crime as well.
Subsequent to his indictment for murder, petitioner moved to suppress the confession on the grounds that it had been impermissibly coerced in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. At the ensuing hearing, he testified that he had been detained in a windowless room for a protracted period of time, that he had been surrounded by as many as six police officers during the interrogation, that he had repeatedly requested and been denied permission to telephone his mother, and that he had been badgered into making a false confession. Several police officers offered a different version of the relevant events. Concluding that there had been “no sweating or coercion of the defendant” and “no overreaching” by the police, the court denied the motion. Id., at 21.
The case proceeded to trial. In his opening statement, the prosecutor stressed that the Commonwealth’s case rested almost entirely on petitioner’s confession and on the statement of his uncle, who had told the police that he was also present during the holdup and murder. Tr. 10-14. In response, defense counsel outlined what would prove to be the principal avenue of defense advanced at trial — that, for a number of reasons, the story petitioner had told the police should not be believed. The confession was rife with inconsistencies, counsel argued. For example, petitioner had told the police that the crime was committed during daylight hours and that he had stolen a sum of money from the cash register. In fact, counsel told the jury, the evidence would show that the crime occurred at 10:40 p.m. and that no money at all was missing from the store. Beyond these inconsistencies, counsel suggested, “[t]he very circumstances surrounding the giving of the [confession] are enough to cast doubt on its credibility.” Id., at 16. In particular, she continued, evidence bearing on the length of the interrogation and the manner in which it was conducted would show that the statement was unworthy of belief.
In response to defense counsel’s opening statement, and before any evidence was presented to the jury, the prosecutor moved in limine to prevent the defense from introducing any testimony bearing on the circumstances under which the confession was obtained. Such testimony bore only on the “voluntariness” of the confession, the prosecutor urged, a “legal matter” that had already been resolved by the court in its earlier ruling. App. 27. Defense counsel responded that she had no intention of relitigating the issue of voluntariness, but was seeking only to demonstrate that the circumstances of the confession “cas[t] doubt on its validity and its credibility.” Ibid. Rejecting this reasoning, the court granted the prosecutor’s motion. Although the precise contours of the ruling are somewhat ambiguous, the court expressly held that the defense could inquire into the inconsistencies contained in the confession, but would not be permitted to “develop in front of the jury” any evidence about the duration of the interrogation or the individuals who were in attendance. Id., at 28.
After registering a continuing objection, petitioner invoked a Kentucky procedure under which he was permitted to develop a record of the evidence he would have put before the jury were it not for the court’s evidentiary ruling. That evidence included testimony from two police officers about the size and other physical characteristics of the interrogation room, the length of the interview, and various other details about the taking of the confession. Id., at 45-53.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and petitioner was sentenced to 40 years in prison. The sole issue in the ensuing appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court was whether the exclusion of testimony about the circumstances of the confession violated petitioner’s rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. Over one dissent, the court rejected the claim and affirmed the conviction and sentence. 690 S. W. 2d 753 (1985). The excluded testimony “related solely to voluntariness,” the court reasoned. Id., at 754. Although evidence bearing on the credibility of the confession would have been admissible, under established Kentucky procedure a trial court’s pretrial voluntariness determination is conclusive and may not be relitigated at trial. Because the proposed testimony about the circumstances of petitioner’s confession pertained only to the voluntariness question, the court held, there was no error in keeping that testimony from the jury.
Because the reasoning of the Kentucky Supreme Court is directly at odds with language in several of this Court’s opinions, see, e. g., Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 485-486 (1972), and because it conflicts with the decisions of every other state court to have confronted the issue, see, e. g., Beaver v. State, 455 So. 2d 253, 256 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984); Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648, 653 (Fla. 1981), we granted the petition for certiorari. 474 U. S. 1019 (1985). We now reverse and remand.
II
The holding below rests on the apparent assumption that evidence bearing on the voluntariness of a confession and evidence bearing on its credibility fall in conceptually distinct and mutually exclusive categories. Once a confession has been found voluntary, the Supreme Court of Kentucky believed, the evidence that supported that finding may not be presented to the jury for any other purpose. This analysis finds no support in our cases, is premised on a misconception about the role of confessions in a criminal trial, and, under the circumstances of this case, contributed to an evidentiary ruling that deprived petitioner of his fundamental constitutional right to a fair opportunity to present a defense. California v. Trombetta, 467 U. S. 479, 485 (1984).
It is by now well established that “certain interrogation techniques, either in isolation, or as applied to the unique characteristics of a particular suspect, are so offensive to a civilized system of justice that they must be condemned under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 109 (1985). To assure that the fruits of such techniques are never used to secure a conviction, due process also requires “that a jury [not] hear a confession unless and until the trial judge [or some other independent decisionmaker] has determined that it was freely and voluntarily given.” Sims v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 538, 543-544 (1967). See generally Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (1964).
In laying down these rules the Court has never questioned that “evidence surrounding the making of a confession bears on its credibility” as well as its voluntariness. Id., at 386, n. 13. As the Court noted in Jackson, because “questions of credibility, whether of a witness or of a confession, are for the jury,” the requirement that the court make a pretrial voluntariness determination does not undercut the defendant’s traditional prerogative to challenge the confession’s reliability during the course of the trial. Ibid. To the same effect was Lego v. Twomey, supra, where the Court stated,
“Nothing in Jackson [v. Denno] questioned the province or capacity of juries to assess the truthfulness of confessions. Nothing in that opinion took from the jury any evidence relating to the accuracy or weight of confessions admitted into evidence. A defendant has been as free since Jackson as he was before to familiarize a jury with circumstances that attend the taking of his confession, including facts bearing upon its weight and voluntariness.” Id., at 485-486.
Thus, as Lego and Jackson make clear, to the extent the Court has addressed the question at all, it has expressly assumed that evidence about the manner in which a confession was secured will often be germane to its probative weight, a matter that is exclusively for the jury to assess.
The decisions in both Jackson and Lego, while not framed in the language of constitutional command, reflect the common-sense understanding that the circumstances surrounding the taking of a confession can be highly relevant to two separate inquiries, one legal and one factual. The manner in which a statement was extracted is, of course, relevant to the purely legal question of its voluntariness, a question most, but not all, States assign to the trial judge alone to resolve. See Jackson v. Denno, supra, at 378. But the physical and psychological environment that yielded the confession can also be of substantial relevance to the ultimate factual issue of the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Confessions, even those that have been found to be voluntary, are not conclusive of guilt. And, as with any other part of the prosecutor’s case, a confession may be shown to be “insufficiently corroborated or otherwise . . . unworthy of belief.” Lego v. Twomey, supra, at 485-486. Indeed, stripped of the power to describe to the jury the circumstances that prompted his confession, the defendant is effectively disabled from answering the one question every rational juror needs answered: If the defendant is innocent, why did he previously admit his guilt? Accordingly, regardless of whether the defendant marshaled the same evidence earlier in support of an unsuccessful motion to suppress, and entirely independent of any question of voluntariness, a defendant’s case may stand or fall on his ability to convince the jury that the manner in which the confession was obtained casts doubt on its credibility.
This simple insight is reflected in a federal statute, 18 U. S. C. § 3501(a), the Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed. Rule Evid. 104(e), and the statutory and decisional law of virtually every State in the Nation. See, e. g., Mont. Code Ann. §46-13-301(5) (1983); Palmes v. State, supra, at 653. We recognize, of course, that under our federal system even a consensus as broad as this one is not inevitably congruent with the dictates of the Constitution. We acknowledge also our traditional reluctance to impose constitutional constraints on ordinary evidentiary rulings by state trial courts. In any given criminal case the trial judge is called upon to make dozens, sometimes hundreds, of decisions concerning the admissibility of evidence. As we reaffirmed earlier this Term, the Constitution leaves to the judges who must make these decisions “wide latitude” to exclude evidence that is “repetitive . . . , only marginally relevant” or poses an undue risk of “harassment, prejudice, [or] confusion of the issues.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 679 (1986). Moreover, we have never questioned the power of States to exclude evidence through the application of evidentiary rules that themselves serve the interests of fairness and reliability-even if the defendant would prefer to see that evidence admitted. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284, 302 (1973). Nonetheless, without “signaling] any diminution in the respect traditionally accorded to the States in the establishment and implementation of their own criminal trial rules and procedures,” we have little trouble concluding on the facts of this case that the blanket exclusion of the proffered testimony about the circumstances of petitioner’s confession deprived him of a fair trial. Id., at 302-303.
Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Chambers v. Mississippi, supra, or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment, Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 23 (1967); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U. S. 308 (1974), the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” California v. Trombetta, 467 U. S., at 485; cf. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 684-685 (1984) (“The Constitution guarantees a fair trial through the Due Process Clauses, but it defines the basic elements of a fair trial largely through the several provisions of the Sixth Amendment”). We break no new ground in observing that an essential component of procedural fairness is an opportunity to be heard. In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 273 (1948); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. S. 385, 394 (1914). That opportunity would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant’s claim of innocence. In the absence of any valid state justification, exclusion of this kind of exculpatory evidence deprives a defendant of the basic right to have the prosecutor’s case encounter and “survive the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing.” United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648, 656 (1984). See also Washington v. Texas, supra, at 22-23.
Under these principles, the Kentucky courts erred in foreclosing petitioner’s efforts to introduce testimony about the environment in which the police secured his confession. As both Lego and Jackson make clear, evidence about the manner in which a confession was obtained is often highly relevant to its reliability and credibility. Such evidence was especially relevant in the rather peculiar circumstances of this case. Petitioner’s entire defense was that there was no physical evidence to link him to the crime and that, for a variety of reasons, his earlier admission of guilt was not to be believed. To support that defense, he sought to paint a picture of a young, uneducated boy who was kept against his will in a small, windowless room for a protracted period of time until he confessed to every unsolved crime in the county, including the one for which he now stands convicted. We do not, of course, pass on the strength or merits of that defense. We do, however, think it plain that introducing evidence of the physical circumstances that yielded the confession was all but indispensable to any chance of its succeeding. Especially since neither the Supreme Court of Kentucky in its opinion, nor respondent in its argument to this Court, has advanced any rational justification for the wholesale exclusion of this body of potentially exculpatory evidence, the decision below must be reversed.
Respondent contends that any error was harmless since the very evidence excluded by the trial court’s ruling ultimately came in through other witnesses. Petitioner concedes, and we agree, that the erroneous ruling of the trial court is subject to harmless error analysis. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7; cf. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, supra. We believe, however, that respondent’s harmless error argument should be directed in the first instance to the state court.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Kentucky is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded. | What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"modify",
"remand",
"unusual disposition"
] | [
1
] | sc |
LORDS LANDING VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM COUNCIL OF UNIT OWNERS v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO.
No. 96-1033.
Decided June 2, 1997
Per Curiam.
In this diversity ease, the holding of the federal appellate court below has been called into question by a recent decision of the highest state court in Maryland. We must decide whether it is appropriate, in these circumstances, for this Court to grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the lower court, and remand the case (GVR) for further consideration.
Petitioner, an association of condominium owners, sued respondent in Maryland state court, seeking to compel respondent to pay a $1.1 million judgment it had obtained against respondent’s insured, the developer of its condominium complex. In a previous action, a jury had held the developer liable for numerous defects in the complex, finding that the developer had made misrepresentations and breached various warranty obligations. Respondent had issued a general liability insurance policy covering the developer. The policy provided that respondent would pay “ 'those sums that [the developer] becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . “property damage” to which this insurance applies.”’ App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a. Under the policy, “property damage” was covered only if it was caused by an “accident.”
Respondent removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, based on the parties’ diversity of citizenship. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent. On August 6, 1996, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of Maryland law, an “accident” does not include the “natural and ordinary consequences of a negligent act.” Id., at 4a (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing I A Construction Corp. v. T&T Surveying, Inc., 822 F. Supp. 1213, 1215 (Md. 1993) (quoting Ed. Winkler & Son, Inc. v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 51 Md. App. 190, 194-195, 441 A. 2d 1129, 1132 (1982))). Because the damages awarded in the underlying action were for breach of warranties and misrepresentations relating to poor workmanship, the Court of Appeals concluded that the damages were not caused by an “accident” within the meaning of respondent’s insurance policy. The Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing on September 3, 1996, and issued the mandate on September 11, 1996.
On September 17, 1996, petitioner’s counsel learned of Sheets v. Brethren Mutual Ins. Co., 342 Md. 634, 679 A. 2d 540, a recent decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals— the highest court in Maryland. (Although Sheets was handed down on July 26, 1996, 11 days before the Court of Appeals’ decision, the parties were not aware of the decision until after the mandate was issued, and therefore had not brought the case to the attention of the Court of Appeals. Pet. for Cert. 11.) Sheets cast doubt on the soundness of the Court of Appeals’ decision because it held that “an act of negligence constitutes an 'accident’ under a liability insurance policy when the resulting damage was 'an event that takes place without [the insured’s] foresight or expectation.’ ” 342 Md., at 652, 679 A. 2d, at 548 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Maryland Court of Appeals also expressly disapproved Ed. Winkler & Son, supra, at 1132, and IA Construction Corp., supra, at 1215, two decisions on which the Court of Appeals had primarily relied. 342 Md., at 654-655, and n. 4, 679 A. 2d, at 549-550, and 550, n. 4.
On September 20, 1996, petitioner filed a motion asking the Court of Appeals to recall or stay its mandate based on this development in Maryland law. In its response, respondent argued in part that the Court of Appeals lacked authority to recall an already issued mandate. In a brief order, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s request, ruling only that “the said petition and motions are without merit.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 11a. Petitioner now asks us to grant certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Sheets. Pet. for Cert. 13-14.
This case fits within the category of cases in which we have held it is proper to issue a GVR order. “Where intervening developments, or recent developments that we have reason to believe the court below did not fully consider, reveal a reasonable probability that the decision below rests upon a premise that the lower court would reject if given the opportunity for further consideration, and where it appears that such a redetermination may determine the ultimate outcome of the litigation, a GVR order is ... potentially appropriate.” Lawrence v. Chater, 516 U. S. 163, 167 (1996) (per curiam). The situation here is virtually identical to that in Thomas v. American Home Products, Inc., 519 U. S. 913 (1996), a state-law case from earlier in this Term. There, after the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against petitioners, the Georgia Supreme Court overruled the holding that was the basis for the federal appeals court’s holding. Id., at 914 (Scalia, J., concurring). The appellate court nevertheless denied a petition for rehearing, and we GVR’d. As Justice Scalia wrote in concurrence, our order was in keeping with our “longstanding practice” of vacating a court of appeals’ decision based on a construction of state law that appears to contradict a recent decision of the highest state court. Id., at 915. “[A] judgment of a federal court ruled by state law and correctly applying that law as authoritatively declared by the state courts when the judgment was rendered, must be reversed on appellate review if in the meantime the state courts have disapproved of their former rulings and adopted different ones.” Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U. S. 232, 236 (1944) (per curiam).
Given Sheets’ explicit disapproval of the cases on which the Court of Appeals based its decision, there is reason to question the correctness of the Court of Appeals’ decision. It is true that petitioner brought Sheets to the attention of the Court of Appeals in a motion to stay or recall its mandate and that the Court of Appeals denied this motion. But the Court of Appeals’ ambiguous statement that petitioner’s request was “without merit” does not establish that it actually considered and rejected petitioner’s Sheets argument. In opposing petitioner’s motion, respondent argued that a court of appeals lacks authority to recall its mandate, and the Court of Appeals may have rested its denial of petitioner’s motion on this procedural ground. Respondent does not argue otherwise. Indeed, the procedural ground is by far the most likely, given Sheets’ explicit repudiation of the precedent on which the Court of Appeals’ original judgment hinged. Moreover, we have at least once before issued a GVR order where petitioners notified the Federal Court of Appeals of an intervening State Supreme Court’s opinion in a second petition for rehearing, which the Court of Appeals denied. See Huddleston, supra, at 235.
In these circumstances, we now grant certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded. | What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"modify",
"remand",
"unusual disposition"
] | [
8
] | sc |
MICHIGAN v. LONG
No. 82-256.
Argued February 23, 1983 —
Decided July 6, 1983
Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General of Michigan, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, and Leonard J. Malinowski, Assistant Attorney General.
David A. Strauss argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Jensen, and Deputy Solicitor General Frey.
James H. Geary argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Joseph J. Jerkins.
David Crump, Wayne W. Schmidt, and James P. Manak filed a brief for the Gulf & Great Plains Legal Foundation of America et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), we upheld the validity of a protective search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest because it is unreasonable to deny a police officer the right “to neutralize the threat of physical harm,” id., at 24, when he possesses an articulable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous. We did not, however, expressly address whether such a protective search for weapons could extend to an area beyond the person in the absence of probable cause to arrest. In the present case, respondent David Long was convicted for possession of marihuana found by police in the passenger compartment and trunk of the automobile that he was driving. The police searched the passenger compartment because they had reason to believe that the vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to the officers. We hold that the protective search of the passenger compartment was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. We also examine Long’s argument that the decision below rests upon an adequate and independent state ground, and we decide in favor of our jurisdiction.
H
Deputies Howell and Lewis were on patrol in a rural area one evening when, shortly after midnight, they observed a car traveling erratically and at excessive speed. The officers observed the car turning down a side road, where it swerved off into a shallow ditch. The officers stopped to investigate. Long, the only occupant of the automobile, met the deputies at the rear of the car, which was protruding from the ditch onto the road. The door on the driver’s side of the vehicle was left open.
Deputy Howell requested Long to produce his operator’s license, but he did not respond. After the request was repeated, Long produced his license. Long again failed to respond when Howell requested him to produce the vehicle registration. After another repeated request, Long, who Howell thought “appeared to be under the influence of something,” 413 Mich. 461, 469, 320 N. W. 2d 866, 868 (1982), turned from the officers and began walking toward the open door of the vehicle. The officers followed Long and both observed a large hunting knife on the floorboard of the driver’s side of the car. The officers then stopped Long’s progress and subjected him to a Terry protective patdown, which revealed no weapons.
Long and Deputy Lewis then stood by the rear of the vehicle while Deputy Howell shined his flashlight into the interior of the vehicle, but did not actually enter it. The purpose of Howell’s action was “to search for other weapons.” 413 Mich., at 469, 320 N. W. 2d, at 868. The officer noticed that something was protruding from under the armrest on the front seat. He knelt in the vehicle and lifted the armrest. He saw an open pouch on the front seat, and upon flashing his light on the pouch, determined that it contained what appeared to be marihuana. After Deputy Howell showed the pouch and its contents to Deputy Lewis, Long was arrested for possession of marihuana. A further search of the interior of the vehicle, including the glovebox, revealed neither more contraband nor the vehicle registration. The officers decided to impound the vehicle. Deputy Howell opened the trunk, which did not have a lock, and discovered inside it approximately 75 pounds of marihuana.
The Barry County Circuit Court denied Long’s motion to suppress the marihuana taken from both the interior of the car and its trunk. He was subsequently convicted of possession of marihuana. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Long’s conviction, holding that the search of the passenger compartment was valid as a protective search under Terry, swpra, and that the search of the trunk was valid as an inventory search under South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364 (1976). See 94 Mich. App. 338, 288 N. W. 2d 629 (1979). The Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The court held that “the sole justification of the Terry search, protection of the police officers and others nearby, cannot justify the search in this case.” 413 Mich., at 472, 320 N. W. 2d, at 869. The marihuana found in Long’s trunk was considered by the court below to be the “fruit” of the illegal search of the interior, and was also suppressed.
We granted certiorari in this case to consider the important question of the authority of a police officer to protect himself by conducting a Terry-type search of the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle during the lawful investigatory stop of the occupant of the vehicle. 459 U. S. 904 (1982).
II
Before reaching the merits, we must consider Long’s argument that we are without jurisdiction to decide this case because the decision below rests on an adequate and independent state ground. The court below referred twice to the State Constitution in its opinion, but otherwise relied exclusively on federal law. Long argues that the Michigan courts have provided greater protection from searches and seizures under the State Constitution than is afforded under the Fourth Amendment, and the references to the State Constitution therefore establish an adequate and independent ground for the decision below.
It is, of course, “incumbent upon this Court... to ascertain for itself . . . whether the asserted non-federal ground independently and adequately supports the judgment. ” Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U. S. 765, 773 (1931). Although we have announced a number of principles in order to help us determine whether various forms of references to state law constitute adequate and independent state grounds, we openly admit that we have thus far not developed a satisfying and consistent approach for resolving this vexing issue. In some instances, we have taken the strict view that if the ground of decision was at all unclear, we would dismiss the case. See, e. g., Lynch v. New York ex rel. Pierson, 293 U. S. 52 (1934). In other instances, we have vacated, see, e. g., Minnesota v. National Tea Co, 309 U. S. 551 (1940), or continued a case, see, e. g., Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117 (1945), in order to obtain clarification about the nature of a state court decision. See also California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 (1972). In more recent cases, we have ourselves examined state law to determine whether state courts have used federal law to guide their application of state law or to provide the actual basis for the decision that was reached. See Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730, 732-733, n. 1 (1983) (plurality opinion). Cf. South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U. S. 553, 569 (1983) (Stevens, J., dissenting). In Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U. S. 667, 670-671 (1982), we rejected an invitation to remand to the state court for clarification even when the decision rested in part on a case from the state court, because we determined that the state case itself rested upon federal grounds. We added that “[e]ven if the case admitted of more doubt as to whether federal and state grounds for decision were intermixed, the fact that the state court relied to the extent it did on federal grounds requires us to reach the merits.” Id., at 671.
This ad hoc method of dealing with cases that involve possible adequate and independent state grounds is antithetical to the doctrinal consistency that is required when sensitive issues of federal-state relations are involved. Moreover, none of the various methods of disposition that we have employed thus far recommends itself as the preferred method that we should apply to the exclusion of others, and we therefore determine that it is appropriate to reexamine our treatment of this jurisdictional issue in order to achieve the consistency that is necessary.
The process of examining state law is unsatisfactory because it requires us to interpret state laws with which we are generally unfamiliar, and which often, as in this case, have not been discussed at length by the parties. Vacation and continuance for clarification have also been unsatisfactory both because of the delay and decrease in efficiency of judicial administration, see Dixon v. Duffy, 344 U. S. 143 (1952), and, more important, because these methods of disposition place significant burdens on state courts to demonstrate the presence or absence of our jurisdiction. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Jerome, 434 U. S. 241, 244 (1978) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); Department of Motor Vehicles v. Rios, 410 U. S. 425, 427 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting). Finally, outright dismissal of cases is clearly not a panacea because it cannot be doubted that there is an important need for uniformity in federal law, and that this need goes unsatisfied when we fail to review an opinion that rests primarily upon federal grounds and where the independence of an alleged state ground is not apparent from the four corners of the opinion. We have long recognized that dismissal is inappropriate “where there is strong indication . . . that the federal constitution as judicially construed controlled the decision below.” National Tea Co., supra, at 556.
Respect for the independence of state courts, as well as avoidance of rendering advisory opinions, have been the cornerstones of this Court’s refusal to decide cases where there is an adequate and independent state ground. It is precisely because of this respect for state courts, and this desire to avoid advisory opinions, that we do not wish to continue to decide issues of state law that go beyond the opinion that we review, or to require state courts to reconsider cases to clarify the grounds of their decisions. Accordingly, when, as in this case, a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, we will accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal law required it to do so. If a state court chooses merely to rely on federal precedents as it would on the precedents of all other jurisdictions, then it need only make clear by a plain statement in its judgment or opinion that the federal cases are being used only for the purpose of guidance, and do not themselves compel the result that the court has reached. In this way, both justice and judicial administration will be greatly improved. If the state court decision indicates clearly and expressly that it is alternatively based on bona fide separate, adequate, and independent grounds, we, of course, will not undertake to review the decision.
This approach obviates in most instances the need to examine state law in order to decide the nature of the state court decision, and will at the same time avoid the danger of our rendering advisory opinions. It also avoids the unsatisfactory and intrusive practice of requiring state courts to clarify their decisions to the satisfaction of this Court. We believe that such an approach will provide state judges with a clearer opportunity to develop state jurisprudence unimpeded by federal interference, and yet will preserve the integrity of federal law. “It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions. But it is equally important that ambiguous or obscure adjudications by state courts do not stand as barriers to a determination by this Court of the validity under the federal constitution of state action.” National Tea Co., supra, at 557.
The principle that we will not review judgments of state courts that rest on adequate and independent state grounds is based, in part, on “the limitations of our own jurisdiction.” Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117, 125 (1945). The jurisdictional concern is that we not “render an advisory opinion, and if the same judgment would be rendered by the state court after we corrected its views of federal laws, our review could amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion.” Id., at 126. Our requirement of a “plain statement” that a decision rests upon adequate and independent state grounds does not in any way authorize the rendering of advisory opinions. Rather, in determining, as we must, whether we have jurisdiction to review a case that is alleged to rest on adequate and independent state grounds, see Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U. S., at 773, we merely assume that there are no such grounds when it is not clear from the opinion itself that the state court relied upon an adequate and independent state ground and when it fairly appears that the state court rested its decision primarily on federal law.
Our review of the decision below under this framework leaves us unconvinced that it rests upon an independent state ground. Apart from its two citations to the State Constitution, the court below relied exclusively on its understanding of Terry and other federal cases. Not a single state case was cited to support the state court’s holding that the search of the passenger compartment was unconstitutional. Indeed, the court declared that the search in this case was unconstitutional because “[t]he Court of Appeals erroneously applied the principles of Terry v. Ohio ... to the search of the interior of the vehicle in this case.” 413 Mich., at 471, 320 N. W. 2d, at 869. The references to the State Constitution in no way indicate that the decision below rested on grounds in any way independent from the state court’s interpretation of federal law. Even if we accept that the Michigan Constitution has been interpreted to provide independent protection for certain rights also secured under the Fourth Amendment, it fairly appears in this case that the Michigan Supreme Court rested its decision primarily on federal law.
Rather than dismissing the case, or requiring that the state court reconsider its decision on our behalf solely because of a mere possibility that an adequate and independent ground supports the judgment, we find that we have jurisdiction in the absence of a plain statement that the decision below rested on an adequate and independent state ground. It appears to us that the state court “felt compelled by what it understood to be federal constitutional considerations to construe ... its own law in the manner it did.” Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U. S. 562, 568 (1977).
HH J — I HH
The court below held, and respondent Long contends, that Deputy Howell’s entry into the vehicle cannot be justified under the principles set forth in Terry because “Terry authorized only a limited pat-down search of a person suspected of criminal activity” rather than a search of an area. 413 Mich., at 472, 320 N. W. 2d, at 869 (footnote omitted). Brief for Respondent 10. Although Terry did involve the protective frisk of a person, we believe that the police action in this case is justified by the principles that we have already established in Terry and other cases.
In Terry, the Court examined the validity of a “stop and frisk” in the absence of probable cause and a warrant. The police officer in Terry detained several suspects to ascertain their identities after the officer had observed the suspects for a brief period of time and formed the conclusion that they were about to engage in criminal activity. Because the officer feared that the suspects were armed, he patted down the outside of the suspects’ clothing and discovered two revolvers.
Examining the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct in Terry, we held that there is “‘no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search [or seize] against the invasion which the search [or seizure] entails.’” 392 U. S., at 21 (quoting Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 536-537 (1967)). Although the conduct of the officer in Terry involved a “severe, though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security,” 392 U. S., at 24-25, we found that the conduct was reasonable when we weighed the interest of the individual against the legitimate interest in “crime prevention and detection,” id., at 22, and the “need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest.” Id., at 24. When the officer has a reasonable belief “that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm.” Ibid.
Although Terry itself involved the stop and subsequent patdown search of a person, we were careful to note that “[w]e need not develop at length in this case, however, the limitations which the Fourth Amendment places upon a protective search and seizure for weapons. These limitations will have to be developed in the concrete factual circumstances of individual cases. ” Id., at 29. Contrary to Long’s view, Terry need not be read as restricting the preventative search to the person of the detained suspect.
In two cases in which we applied Terry to specific factual situations, we recognized that investigative detentions involving suspects in vehicles are especially fraught with danger to police officers. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977), we held that police may order persons out of an automobile during a stop for a traffic violation, and may frisk those persons for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that they are armed and dangerous. Our decision rested in part on the “inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile.” Id., at 110. In Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143 (1972), we held that the police, acting on an informant’s tip, may reach into the passenger compartment of an automobile to remove a gun from a driver’s waistband even where the gun was not apparent to police from outside the car and the police knew of its existence only because of the tip. Again, our decision rested in part on our view of the danger presented to police officers in “traffic stop” and automobile situations.
“The opinion in Terry authorized the frisking of an overcoat worn by defendant because that was the issue presented by the facts. One could reasonably conclude that a different result would not have been constitutionally required if the overcoat had been carried, folded over the forearm, rather than worn. The constitutional principles stated in Terry would still control.” 413 Mich., at 475-476, 320 N. W. 2d, at 871 (footnote omitted).
Finally, we have also expressly recognized that suspects may injure police officers and others by virtue of their access to weapons, even though they may not themselves be armed. In the Term following Terry, we decided Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), which involved the limitations imposed on police authority to conduct a search incident to a valid arrest. Relying explicitly on Terry, we held that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search “the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’ — construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” 395 U. S., at 763. We reasoned that “[a] gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested.” Ibid. In New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981), we determined that the lower courts “have found no workable definition of ‘the area within the immediate control of the arrestee’ when that area arguably includes the interior of an automobile and the arrestee is its recent occupant.” Id., at 460. In order to provide a “workable rule,” ibid., we held that “articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, even if not inevitably, within ‘the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon’ . . . .” Ibid, (quoting Chimel, swpra, at 763). We also held that the police may examine the contents of any open or closed container found within the passenger compartment, “for if the passenger compartment is within the reach of the arrestee, so will containers in it be within his reach.” 453 U. S., at 460 (footnote omitted). See also Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692, 702 (1981).
Our past cases indicate then that protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger, that roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and that danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. These principles compel our conclusion that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant” the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. See Terry, 392 U. S., at 21. “[T]he issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.” Id., at 27. If a suspect is “dangerous,” he is no less dangerous simply because he is not arrested. If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of the interior of the automobile, the officer should, as here, discover contraband other than weapons, he clearly cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 465 (1971); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 509 (1978); Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S., at 739 (plurality opinion by Rehnquist, J.); id., at 746 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment).
The circumstances of this case clearly justified Deputies Howell and Lewis in their reasonable belief that Long posed a danger if he were permitted to reenter his vehicle. The hour was late and the area rural. Long was driving his automobile at excessive speed, and his car swerved into a ditch. The officers had to repeat their questions to Long, who appeared to be “under the influence” of some intoxicant. Long was not frisked until the officers observed that there was a large knife in the interior of the car into which Long was about to reenter. The subsequent search of the car was restricted to those areas to which Long would generally have immediate control, and that could contain a weapon. The trial court determined that the leather pouch containing marihuana could have contained a weapon. App. 64a. It is clear that the intrusion was “strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justified] its initiation.” Terry, supra, at 26.
In evaulating the validity of an officer’s investigative or protective conduct under Terry, the “[tjouchstone of our analysis ... is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S., at 108-109 (quoting Terry, supra, at 19). In this case, the officers did not act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within Long’s immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. Therefore, the balancing required by Terry clearly weighs in favor of allowing the police to conduct an area search of the passenger compartment to uncover weapons, as long as they possess an articulable and objectively reasonable belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous.
The Michigan Supreme Court appeared to believe that it was not reasonable for the officers to fear that Long could injure them, because he was effectively under their control during the investigative stop and could not get access to any weapons that might have been located in the automobile. See 413 Mich., at 472, 320 N. W. 2d, at 869. This reasoning is mistaken in several respects. During any investigative detention, the suspect is “in the control” of the officers in the sense that he “may be briefly detained against his will. . . .” Terry, supra, at 34 (White, J., concurring). Just as a Terry suspect on the street may, despite being under the brief control of a police officer, reach into his clothing and retrieve a weapon, so might a Terry suspect in Long’s position break away from police control and retrieve a weapon from his automobile. See United States v. Rainone, 586 F. 2d 1132, 1134 (CA71978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 980 (1979). In addi-
tion, if the suspect is not placed under arrest, he will be permitted to reenter his automobile, and he will then have access to any weapons inside. United States v. Powless, 546 F. 2d 792, 795-796 (CA8), cert. denied, 430 U. S. 910 (1977). Or, as here, the suspect may be permitted to reenter the vehicle before the Terry investigation is over, and again, may have access to weapons. In any event, we stress that a Terry investigation, such as the one that occurred here, involves a police investigation “at close range,” Terry, 392 U. S., at 24, when the officer remains particularly vulnerable in part because a full custodial arrest has not been effected, and the officer must make a “quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger . . . .” Id., at 28. In such circumstances, we have not required that officers adopt alternative means to ensure their safety in order to avoid the intrusion involved in a Terry encounter.
HH <
The trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the search of the trunk as a valid inventory search under this Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364 (1976). The Michigan Supreme Court did not address this holding, and instead suppressed the marihuana taken from the trunk as a fruit of the illegal search of the interior of the automobile. Our holding that the initial search was justified under Terry makes it necessary to determine whether the trunk search was permissible under the Fourth Amendment. However, we decline to address this question because it was not passed upon by the Michigan Supreme Court, whose decision we review in this case. See Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437, 438 (1969). We remand this issue to the court below, to enable it to determine whether the trunk search was permissible under Opperman, supra, or other decisions of this Court. See, e. g., United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982).
V
The judgment of the Michigan Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
It is clear, and the respondent concedes, that if the officers had arrested Long for speeding or for driving while intoxicated, they could have searched the passenger compartment under New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981), and the trunk under United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982), if they had probable cause to believe that the trunk contained contraband. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 41. However, at oral argument, the State informed us that while Long could have been arrested for a speeding violation under Michigan law, he was not arrested because “[a]s a matter of practice,” police in Michigan do not arrest for speeding violations unless “more” is involved. See id., at 6. The officers did issue Long an appearance ticket. The petitioner also confirmed that the officers could have arrested Long for driving while intoxicated but they “would have to go through a process to make a determination as to whether the party is intoxicated and then go from that point.” Ibid.
The court below treated this case as involving a protective search, and not a search justified by probable cause to arrest for speeding, driving while intoxicated, or any other offense. Further, the petitioner does not argue that if probable cause to arrest exists, but the officers do not actually effect the arrest, the police may nevertheless conduct a search as broad as those authorized by Belton and Ross. Accordingly, we do not address that issue.
Chief Justice Coleman dissented, arguing that Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), authorized the area search, and that the trunk search was a valid inventory search. See 413 Mich., at 473-480, 320 N. W. 2d, at 870-873. Justice Moody concurred in the result on the ground that the trunk search was improper. He agreed with Chief Justice Coleman that the interior search was proper under Terry. See 413 Mich., at 480-486, 320 N. W. 2d, at 873-875.
On the first occasion, the court merely cited in a footnote both the State and Federal Constitutions. See id., at 471, n. 4, 320 N. W. 2d, at 869, n. 4. On the second occasion, at the conclusion of the opinion, the court stated: “We hold, therefore, that the deputies’ search of the vehicle was proscribed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 1, §11 of the Michigan Constitution.” Id., at 472-473, 320 N. W. 2d, at 870.
For example, we have long recognized that “where the judgment of a state court rests upon two grounds, one of which is federal and the other non-federal in character, our jurisdiction fails if the non-federal ground is independent of the federal ground and adequate to support the judgment.” Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U. S. 207, 210 (1935). We may review a state case decided on a federal ground even if it is clear that there was an available state ground for decision on which the state court could properly have relied. Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U. S. 35, 37, n. 3 (1967). Also, if, in our view, the state court “ ‘felt compelled by what it understood to be federal constitutional considerations to construe ... its own law in the manner it did,’ ” then we will not treat a normally adequate state ground as independent, and there will be no question about our jurisdiction. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 653 (1979) (quoting Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U. S. 562, 568 (1977)). See also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U. S. 553, 556-557, n. 3 (1983). Finally, “where the non-federal ground is so interwoven with the [federal ground] as not to be an independent matter, or is not of sufficient breadth to sustain the judgment without any decision of the other, our jurisdiction is plain.” Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers Mutual Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 164 (1917).
Indeed, Dixon v. Duffy is also illustrative of another difficulty involved in our requiring state courts to reconsider their decisions for purposes of clarification. In Dixon, we continued the case on two occasions in order to obtain clarification, but none was forthcoming: “[T]he California court advised petitioner’s counsel informally that it doubted its jurisdiction to render such a determination.” 344 U, S., at 145. We then vacated the judgment of the state court, and remanded.
There may be certain circumstances in which clarification is necessary or desirable, and we will not be foreclosed from taking the appropriate action.
In Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S., at 128, the Court also wrote that it was desirable that state courts “be asked rather than told what they have intended. ” It is clear that we have already departed from that view in those cases in which we have examined state law to determine whether a particular result was guided or compelled by federal law. Our decision today departs further from Herb insofar as we disfavor further requests to state courts for clarification, and we require a clear and express statement that a decision rests on adequate and independent state grounds. However, the “plain statement” rule protects the integrity of state courts for the reasons discussed above. The preference for clarification expressed in Herb has failed to be a completely satisfactory means of protecting the state and federal interests that are involved.
It is not unusual for us to employ certain presumptions in deciding jurisdictional issues. For instance, although the petitioner bears the burden of establishing our jurisdiction, Durley v. Mayo, 351 U. S. 277, 285 (1956), we have held that the party who alleges that a controversy before us has become moot has the “heavy burden” of establishing that we lack jurisdiction. County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U. S. 625, 631 (1979). That is, we presume in those circumstances that we have jurisdiction until some party establishes that we do not for reasons of mootness.
We also note that the rule that we announce today was foreshadowed by our opinions in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648 (1979), and Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U. S. 562 (1977). In these cases, the state courts relied on both state and federal law. We determined that we had jurisdiction to decide the cases because our reading of the opinions led us to conclude that each court “felt compelled by what it understood to be federal constitutional considerations to construe and apply its own law in the manner it did.” Zacchini, supra, at 568; Delaware, supra, at 653. In Delaware, we referred to prior state decisions that confirmed our understanding of the opinion in that case, but our primary focus was on the face of the opinion. In Zacchini, we relied entirely on the syllabus and opinion of the state court.
In dissent, Justice Stevens proposes the novel view that this Court should never review a state court decision unless the Court wishes to vindicate a federal right that has been endangered. The rationale of the dissent is not restricted to cases where the decision is arguably supported by adequate and independent state grounds. Rather, Justice Stevens appears to believe that even if the decision below rests exclusively on federal grounds, this Court should not review the decision as long as there is no federal right that is endangered.
The state courts handle the vast bulk of all criminal litigation in this country. In 1982, more than 12 million criminal actions (excluding juvenile and traffic charges) were filed in the 50 state court systems and the District of Columbia. See 7 State Court Journal, No. 1, p. 18 (1983). By comparison, approximately 32,700 criminal suits were filed in federal courts during that same year. See Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 6 (1982). The state courts are required to apply federal constitutional standards, and they necessarily create a considerable body of “federal law” in the process. It is not surprising that this Court has become more interested in the application and development of federal law by state courts in the light of the recent significant expansion of federally created standards that we have imposed on the States.
At oral argument, Long argued that the state court relied on its decision in People v. Reed, 393 Mich. 342, 224 N. W. 2d 867, cert. denied, 422 U. S. 1044 (1975). See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29. However, the court cited that ease only in the context of a statement that the State did not seek to justify the search in this case “by reference to other exceptions to the warrant requirement.” 413 Mich., at 472, 320 N. W. 2d, at 869-870 (footnote omitted). The court then noted that Reed held that ‘“[a] warrantless search and seizure is unreasonable per se and violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. 1, § 11 of the state constitution unless shown to be within one of the exceptions to the rule.’ ” 413 Mich., at 472-473, n. 8, 320 N. W. 2d, at 870, n. 8.
There is nothing unfair about requiring a plain statement of an independent state ground in this case. Even if we were to rest our decision on an evaluation of the state law relevant to Long’s claim, as we have sometimes done in the past, our understanding of Michigan law would also result in our finding that we have jurisdiction to decide this case. Under state search-and-seizure law, a “higher standard” is imposed under Art. 1, § 11, of the 1963 Michigan Constitution. See People v. Secrest, 413 Mich. 521, 525, 321 N. W. 2d 368, 369 (1982). If, however, the item seized is, inter alia, a “narcotic drug . . . seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state,” Art. 1, § 11, of the 1963 Michigan Constitution, then the seizure is governed by a standard identical to that imposed by the Fourth Amendment. See People v. Moore, 391 Mich. 426, 435, 216 N. W. 2d 770, 775 (1974).
Long argues that under the current Michigan Comp. Laws §333.7107 (1979), the definition of a “narcotic” does not include marihuana. The difficulty with this argument is that Long fails to cite any authority for the proposition that the term “narcotic” as used in the Michigan Constitution is dependent on current statutory definitions of that term. Indeed, it appears that just the opposite is true. The Michigan Supreme Court has held that constitutional provisions are presumed “to be interpreted in accordance with existing laws and legal usages of the time” of the passage of the provision. Bacon v. Kent-Ottawa Authority, 354 Mich. 159, 169, 92 N. W. 2d 492, 497 (1958). If the state legislature were able to change the interpretation of a constitutional provision by statute, then the legislature would have “the power of outright repeal of a duly-voted constitutional provision.” Ibid. Applying these principles, the Michigan courts have held that a statute passed subsequent to the applicable state constitutional provision is not relevant for interpreting its Constitution, and that a definition in a legislative Act pertains only to that Act. Jones v. City of Ypsilanti, 26 Mich. App. 574, 182 N. W. 2d 795 (1970). See also Walber v. Piggins, 2 Mich. App. 145, 138 N. W. 2d 772 (1966), aff’d, 381 Mich. 138, 160 N. W. 2d 876 (1968). At the time that the 1963 Michigan Constitution was enacted, it is clear that marihuana was considered a narcotic drug. See 1961 Mich. Pub. Acts, No. 206, § 1(f). Indeed, it appears that marihuana was considered a narcotic drug in Michigan until 1978, when it was removed from the narcotic classification. We would conclude that the seizure of marihuana in Michigan is not subject to analysis under any “higher standard” than may be imposed on the seizure of other items. In the light of our holding in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648 (1979), that an interpretation of state law in our view compelled by federal constitutional considerations is not an independent state ground, we would have jurisdiction to decide the case.
Although we did not in any way weaken the warrant requirement, we acknowledged that the typical “stop and frisk” situation involves “an entire rubric of police conduct — necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat — which historically has not been, and as a practical matter could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure. Instead, the conduct in this case must be tested by the Fourth Amendment’s general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Terry, 392 U. S., at 20 (footnote omitted). We have emphasized that the propriety of a Terry stop and frisk is to be judged according to whether the officer acted as a “reasonably prudent man” in deciding that the intrusion was justified. Id., at 27. “A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.” Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 146 (1972).
As Chief Justice Coleman noted in her dissenting opinion in the present case:
According to one study, “approximately 30% of police shootings occurred when a police officer approached a suspect seated in an automobile. Bristow, Police Officer Shootings — A Tactical Evaluation, 54 J. Crim. L. C. & P. S. 93 (1963).” Adams v. Williams, supra, at 148, n. 3.
We stress that our decision does not mean that the police may conduct automobile searches whenever they conduct an investigative stop, although the “bright line” that we drew in Belton clearly authorizes such a search whenever officers effect a custodial arrest. An additional interest exists in the arrest context, i. e., preservation of evidence, and this justifies an “automatic” search. However, that additional interest does not exist in the Terry context. A Terry search, “unlike a search without a warrant incident to a lawful arrest, is not justified by any need to prevent the disappearance or destruction of evidence of crime. . . . The sole justification of the search ... is the protection of the police officer and others nearby . . . .” 392 U. S., at 29. What we borrow now from Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), and Belton is merely the recognition that part of the reason to allow area searches incident to an arrest is that the arrestee, who may not himself be armed, may be able to gain access to weapons to injure officers or others nearby, or otherwise to hinder legitimate police activity. This recognition applies as well in the Terry context. However, because the interest in collecting and preserving evidence is not present in the Terry context, we require that officers who conduct area searches during investigative detentions must do so only when they have the level of suspicion identified in Terry.
Of course, our analysis would apply to justify the search of Long’s person that was conducted by the officers after the discovery of the knife.
Long makes a number of arguments concerning the invalidity of the search of the passenger compartment. The thrust of these arguments is that Terry searches are limited in scope and that an area search is fundamentally inconsistent with this limited scope. We have recognized that Terry searches are limited insofar as they may not be conducted in the absence of an articulable suspicion that the intrusion is justified, see, e. g., Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 65 (1968), and that they are protective in nature and limited to weapons, see Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85, 93-94 (1979). However, neither of these concerns is violated by our decision. To engage in an area search, which is limited to seeking weapons, the officer must have an articulable suspicion that the suspect is potentially dangerous.
Long also argues that there cannot be a legitimate Terry search based on the discovery of the hunting knife because Long possessed that weapon legally. See Brief for Respondent 17. Assuming, arguendo, that Long possessed the knife lawfully, we have expressly rejected the view that the validity of a Terry search depends on whether the weapon is possessed in accordance with state law. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S., at 146.
Contrary to Justice Brennan’s suggestion in dissent, the reasoning of Terry, Chimel, and Belton points clearly to the direction that we have taken today. Although Chimel involved a full custodial arrest, the rationale for Chimel rested on the recognition in Terry that it is unreasonable to prevent the police from taking reasonable steps to protect their safety.
Justice Brennan suggests that we are expanding the scope of a Terry-type search to include a search incident to a valid arrest. However, our opinion clearly indicates that the area search that we approve is limited to a search for weapons in circumstances where the officers have a reasonable belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous to them. Justice Brennan quotes at length from Sibron, but fails to recognize that the search in that case was a search for narcotics, and not a search for weapons.
Justice Brennan concedes that “police should not be exposed to unnecessary danger in the performance of their duties,” post, at 1064, but then would require that police officers, faced with having to make quick determinations about self-protection and the defense of innocent citizens in the area, must also decide instantaneously what “less intrusive” alternative exists to ensure that any threat presented by the suspect will be neutralized. Post, at 1065. For the practical reasons explained in Terry, 392 U. S., at 24, 28, we have never required police to adopt alternative measures to avoid a legitimate Terry-type intrusion.
Long suggests that the trunk search is invalid under state law. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 41, 43-44. The Michigan Supreme Court is, of course, free to determine the validity of that search under state law. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the state of the court in which the case originated. Consider the District of Columbia as a state. | What is the state of the court in which the case originated? | [
"Alabama",
"Alaska",
"American Samoa",
"Arizona",
"Arkansas",
"California",
"Colorado",
"Connecticut",
"Delaware",
"District of Columbia",
"Federated States of Micronesia",
"Florida",
"Georgia",
"Guam",
"Hawaii",
"Idaho",
"Illinois",
"Indiana",
"Iowa",
"Kansas",
"Kentucky",
"Louisiana",
"Maine",
"Marshall Islands",
"Maryland",
"Massachusetts",
"Michigan",
"Minnesota",
"Mississippi",
"Missouri",
"Montana",
"Nebraska",
"Nevada",
"New Hampshire",
"New Jersey",
"New Mexico",
"New York",
"North Carolina",
"North Dakota",
"Northern Mariana Islands",
"Ohio",
"Oklahoma",
"Oregon",
"Palau",
"Pennsylvania",
"Puerto Rico",
"Rhode Island",
"South Carolina",
"South Dakota",
"Tennessee",
"Texas",
"Utah",
"Vermont",
"Virgin Islands",
"Virginia",
"Washington",
"West Virginia",
"Wisconsin",
"Wyoming",
"United States",
"Interstate Compact",
"Philippines",
"Indian",
"Dakota"
] | [
26
] | sc |
HAMMERSTEIN v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA et al.
No. 421.
Argued March 9, 1951.
Continued March 26, 1951.
Milton A. Rudin argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Robert E. Kopp.
E. Loyd Saunders argued the cause for respondents. Saul Ross filed a brief for respondents.
Per Curiam.
In this case the respondent Reggie Hammerstein, by her mother and guardian, commenced a paternity action against the petitioner in the Superior Court of California. Petitioner entered a special appearance in that court, alleging that it had no personal jurisdiction over him, as he was a New York resident. He moved to quash the service upon him in New York on the grounds that any judgment obtained against him in this proceeding would deprive him of due process. The motion to quash was denied. The superior court entered judgment for the respondent.
Prior to the entry of the judgment, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the District Court of Appeal. This petition was denied without opinion. The California Supreme Court denied his application for a hearing. After judgment, petitioner filed in the California Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the superior court proceedings. The California Supreme Court denied this petition without opinion. We granted certiorari, 340 U. S. 919 (1951).
Throughout these proceedings, petitioner preserved his federal questions, but since neither of the decisions below was accompanied by an opinion, it is not clear whether the California courts found it necessary to decide any federal question. If their judgments rest upon an adequate state ground, we, of course, will not review those judgments. If the denials of petitioner's applications for review were based upon a determination of the merits of his federal claim, the case will be ripe for our adjudication. In this circumstance, we think it advisable that we adhere to the procedure followed in Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117 (1945).
We will continue the cause for such period as will enable counsel for the petitioner, with all convenient speed, to apply to the appropriate California courts for certificate or other expression, to show whether the judgments herein rest on adequate and independent state grounds or whether decision of the federal question was necessary to the judgments rendered. Cf. Loftus v. Illinois, 334 U. S. 804 (1948); Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 303 U. S. 95 (1938).
Cause continued. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the disposition of the case, that is, the treatment the Supreme Court accorded the court whose decision it reviewed. The information relevant to this variable may be found near the end of the summary that begins on the title page of each case, or preferably at the very end of the opinion of the Court. For cases in which the Court granted a motion to dismiss, consider "petition denied or appeal dismissed". There is "no disposition" if the Court denied a motion to dismiss. | What is the disposition of the case, that is, the treatment the Supreme Court accorded the court whose decision it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed (includes modified)",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"certification to or from a lower court",
"no disposition"
] | [
0
] | sc |
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Petitioners
v.
Theodore WESBY, et al.
No. 15-1485.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Oct. 4, 2017.
Decided Jan. 22, 2018.
Todd S. Kim, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.
Robert A. Parker, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the petitioners.
Nathaniel P. Garrett, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents.
Nathaniel P. Garrett, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA, Charlotte H. Taylor, Julia Fong Sheketoff, Jones Day, Gregory L. Lattimer, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, Loren L. Alikhan, Deputy Solicitor General, Carl J. Schifferle, Assistant Attorney General, D.C. Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves a civil suit against the District of Columbia and five of its police officers, brought by 16 individuals who were arrested for holding a raucous, late-night party in a house they did not have permission to enter. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that there was no probable cause to arrest the partygoers, and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. We reverse on both grounds.
I
Around 1 a.m. on March 16, 2008, the District's Metropolitan Police Department received a complaint about loud music and illegal activities at a house in Northeast D.C. The caller, a former neighborhood commissioner, told police that the house had been vacant for several months. When officers arrived at the scene, several neighbors confirmed that the house should have been empty. The officers approached the house and, consistent with the complaint, heard loud music playing inside.
After the officers knocked on the front door, they saw a man look out the window and then run upstairs. One of the partygoers opened the door, and the officers entered. They immediately observed that the inside of the house " 'was in disarray' " and looked like " 'a vacant property.' " 841 F.Supp.2d 20, 31 (D.D.C.2012) (quoting Defs. Exh. A). The officers smelled marijuana and saw beer bottles and cups of liquor on the floor. In fact, the floor was so dirty that one of the partygoers refused to sit on it while being questioned. Although the house had working electricity and plumbing, it had no furniture downstairs other than a few padded metal chairs. The only other signs of habitation were blinds on the windows, food in the refrigerator, and toiletries in the bathroom.
In the living room, the officers found a makeshift strip club. Several women were wearing only bras and thongs, with cash tucked into their garter belts. The women were giving lap dances while other partygoers watched. Most of the onlookers were holding cash and cups of alcohol. After seeing the uniformed officers, many partygoers scattered into other parts of the house.
The officers found more debauchery upstairs. A naked woman and several men were in the bedroom. A bare mattress-the only one in the house-was on the floor, along with some lit candles and multiple open condom wrappers. A used condom was on the windowsill. The officers found one partygoer hiding in an upstairs closet, and another who had shut himself in the bathroom and refused to come out.
The officers found a total of 21 people in the house. After interviewing all 21, the officers did not get a clear or consistent story. Many partygoers said they were there for a bachelor party, but no one could identify the bachelor. Each of the partygoers claimed that someone had invited them to the house, but no one could say who. Two of the women working the party said that a woman named "Peaches" or "Tasty" was renting the house and had given them permission to be there. One of the women explained that the previous owner had recently passed away, and Peaches had just started renting the house from the grandson who inherited it. But the house had no boxes or moving supplies. She did not know Peaches' real name. And Peaches was not there.
An officer asked the woman to call Peaches on her phone so he could talk to her. Peaches answered and explained that she had just left the party to go to the store. When the officer asked her to return, Peaches refused because she was afraid of being arrested. The sergeant supervising the investigation also spoke with Peaches. At first, Peaches claimed to be renting the house from the owner, who was fixing it up for her. She also said that she had given the attendees permission to have the party. When the sergeant again asked her who had given her permission to use the house, Peaches became evasive and hung up. The sergeant called her back, and she began yelling and insisting that she had permission before hanging up a second time. The officers eventually got Peaches on the phone again, and she admitted that she did not have permission to use the house.
The officers then contacted the owner. He told them that he had been trying to negotiate a lease with Peaches, but they had not reached an agreement. He confirmed that he had not given Peaches (or anyone else) permission to be in the house-let alone permission to use it for a bachelor party. At that point, the officers arrested the 21 partygoers for unlawful entry. See D.C. Code § 22-3302 (2008). The police transported the partygoers to the police station, where the lieutenant decided to charge them with disorderly conduct. See § 22-1321. The partygoers were released, and the charges were eventually dropped.
II
Respondents, 16 of the 21 partygoers, sued the District and five of the arresting officers. They sued the officers for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment, Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and under District law. They sued the District for false arrest and negligent supervision under District law. The partygoers' claims were all "predicated upon the allegation that [they] were arrested without probable cause." 841 F.Supp.2d, at 32.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court awarded partial summary judgment to the partygoers. Id., at 48-49. It concluded that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest the partygoers for unlawful entry. Id., at 32-33. The officers were told that Peaches had invited the partygoers to the house, the District Court reasoned, and nothing the officers learned in their investigation suggested the partygoers " 'knew or should have known that [they were] entering against the [owner's] will.' " Id., at 32. The District Court also concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983. It noted that, under District case law, "probable cause to arrest for unlawful entry requires evidence that the alleged intruder knew or should have known, upon entry, that such entry was against the will of the owner."
Id., at 37. And in its view, the officers had no such evidence. Id., at 32-33, 37-38.
With liability resolved, the case proceeded to trial on damages. The jury awarded the partygoers a total of $680,000 in compensatory damages. After the District Court awarded attorney's fees, the total award was nearly $1 million.
On appeal, a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed. On the question of probable cause, the panel majority made Peaches' invitation "central" to its determination that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest the partygoers for unlawful entry. 765 F.3d 13, 21 (2014). The panel majority asserted that, "in the absence of any conflicting information, Peaches' invitation vitiates the necessary element of [the partygoers'] intent to enter against the will of the lawful owner." Ibid. And the panel majority determined that "there is simply no evidence in the record that [the partygoers] had any reason to think the invitation was invalid." Ibid.
On the question of qualified immunity, the panel majority determined that it was "perfectly clear" that a person with "a good purpose and bona fide belief of her right to enter" lacks the necessary intent for unlawful entry. Id., at 27. In other words, the officers needed "some evidence" that the partygoers "knew or should have known they were entering against the will of the lawful owner." Ibid. And here, the panel majority asserted, the officers must "have known that uncontroverted evidence of an invitation to enter the premises would vitiate probable cause for unlawful entry." Ibid.
Judge Brown dissented. She concluded that summary judgment on the false-arrest claims was improper because, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer "could disbelieve [the partygoers'] claim of innocent entry" and infer that they knew or should have known that they did not have permission to be in the house. Id., at 34. She also disagreed with the denial of qualified immunity, contending that a reasonable officer could have found probable cause to arrest in this "unusual factual scenario, not well represented in the controlling case law." Id., at 36.
The D.C. Circuit denied rehearing en banc over the dissent of four judges. The dissenters focused on qualified immunity, contending that the panel opinion "contravene[d] ... emphatic Supreme Court directives" that "police officers may not be held liable for damages unless the officers were 'plainly incompetent' or 'knowingly violate[d]' clearly established law." 816 F.3d 96, 102 (2016) (quoting Carroll v. Carman, 574 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 348, 350, 190 L.Ed.2d 311 (2014) (per curiam )). The panel majority-Judges Pillard and Edwards-responded in a joint concurrence. 816 F.3d, at 96-101. They insisted that the panel opinion did not misapply the law of qualified immunity, and that their disagreement with the dissenters was a mere "case-specific assessment of the circumstantial evidence in the record." Id., at 100.
We granted certiorari to resolve two questions: whether the officers had probable cause to arrest the partygoers, and whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. See 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 826, 196 L.Ed.2d 610 (2017). We address each question in turn.
III
The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Because arrests are "seizures" of "persons," they must be reasonable under the circumstances. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). A warrantless arrest is reasonable if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a crime in the officer's presence. Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001).
To determine whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest, "we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide 'whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to' probable cause." Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) ). Because probable cause "deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances," 540 U.S., at 371, 124 S.Ct. 795, it is "a fluid concept" that is "not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules," Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). It "requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity." Id., at 243-244, n. 13, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (1983). Probable cause "is not a high bar." Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1090, 1103, 188 L.Ed.2d 46 (2014).
A
There is no dispute that the partygoers entered the house against the will of the owner. Nonetheless, the partygoers contend that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest them because the officers had no reason to believe that they "knew or should have known" their "entry was unwanted." Ortberg v. United States, 81 A.3d 303, 308 (D.C.2013). We disagree. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the officers made an "entirely reasonable inference" that the partygoers were knowingly taking advantage of a vacant house as a venue for their late-night party. Pringle, supra, at 372, 124 S.Ct. 795.
Consider first the condition of the house. Multiple neighbors, including a former neighborhood official, informed the officers that the house had been vacant for several months. The house had no furniture, except for a few padded metal chairs and a bare mattress. The rest of the house was empty, save for some fixtures and large appliances. The house had a few signs of inhabitance-working electricity and plumbing, blinds on the windows, toiletries in the bathroom, and food in the refrigerator. But those facts are not necessarily inconsistent with the house being unoccupied. The owner could have paid the utilities and kept the blinds while he looked for a new tenant, and the partygoers could have brought the food and toiletries. Although one woman told the officers that Peaches had recently moved in, the officers had reason to doubt that was true. There were no boxes or other moving supplies in the house; nor were there other possessions, such as clothes in the closet, suggesting someone lived there.
In addition to the condition of the house, consider the partygoers' conduct. The party was still going strong when the officers arrived after 1 a.m., with music so loud that it could be heard from outside. Upon entering the house, multiple officers smelled marijuana. The partygoers left beer bottles and cups of liquor on the floor, and they left the floor so dirty that one of them refused to sit on it. The living room had been converted into a makeshift strip club. Strippers in bras and thongs, with cash stuffed in their garter belts, were giving lap dances. Upstairs, the officers found a group of men with a single, naked woman on a bare mattress-the only bed in the house-along with multiple open condom wrappers and a used condom.
Taken together, the condition of the house and the conduct of the partygoers allowed the officers to make several " 'common-sense conclusions about human behavior.' " Gates, supra, at 231, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981) ). Most homeowners do not live in near-barren houses. And most homeowners do not invite people over to use their living room as a strip club, to have sex in their bedroom, to smoke marijuana inside, and to leave their floors filthy. The officers could thus infer that the partygoers knew their party was not authorized.
The partygoers' reaction to the officers gave them further reason to believe that the partygoers knew they lacked permission to be in the house. Many scattered at the sight of the uniformed officers. Two hid themselves, one in a closet and the other in a bathroom. "[U]nprovoked flight upon noticing the police," we have explained, "is certainly suggestive" of wrongdoing and can be treated as "suspicious behavior" that factors into the totality of the circumstances. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-125, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000). In fact, "deliberately furtive actions and flight at the approach of ... law officers are strong indicia of mens rea. " Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 66, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968) (emphasis added). A reasonable officer could infer that the partygoers' scattering and hiding was an indication that they knew they were not supposed to be there.
The partygoers' answers to the officers' questions also suggested their guilty state of mind. When the officers asked who had given them permission to be there, the partygoers gave vague and implausible responses. They could not say who had invited them. Only two people claimed that Peaches had invited them, and they were working the party instead of attending it. If Peaches was the hostess, it was odd that none of the partygoers mentioned her name. Additionally, some of the partygoers claimed the event was a bachelor party, but no one could identify the bachelor. The officers could have disbelieved them, since people normally do not throw a bachelor party without a bachelor. Based on the vagueness and implausibility of the partygoers' stories, the officers could have reasonably inferred that they were lying and that their lies suggested a guilty mind. Cf. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 149, 155-156, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004) (noting that the suspect's "untruthful and evasive" answers to police questioning could support probable cause).
The panel majority relied heavily on the fact that Peaches said she had invited the partygoers to the house. But when the officers spoke with Peaches, she was nervous, agitated, and evasive. Cf. Wardlow, supra, at 124, 120 S.Ct. 673 (explaining that the police can take a suspect's "nervous, evasive behavior" into account). After initially insisting that she had permission to use the house, she ultimately confessed that this was a lie-a fact that the owner confirmed. Peaches' lying and evasive behavior gave the officers reason to discredit everything she had told them. For example, the officers could have inferred that Peaches lied to them when she said she had invited the others to the house, which was consistent with the fact that hardly anyone at the party knew her name. Or the officers could have inferred that Peaches told the partygoers (like she eventually told the police) that she was not actually renting the house, which was consistent with how the partygoers were treating it.
Viewing these circumstances as a whole, a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe the partygoers knew they did not have permission to be in the house.
B
In concluding otherwise, the panel majority engaged in an "excessively technical dissection" of the factors supporting probable cause. Gates, 462 U.S., at 234, 103 S.Ct. 2317. Indeed, the panel majority failed to follow two basic and well-established principles of law.
First, the panel majority viewed each fact "in isolation, rather than as a factor in the totality of the circumstances." Pringle, 540 U.S., at 372, n. 2, 124 S.Ct. 795. This was "mistaken in light of our precedents." Ibid. The "totality of the circumstances" requires courts to consider "the whole picture." Cortez, supra, at 417, 101 S.Ct. 690 Our precedents recognize that the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts-especially when the parts are viewed in isolation. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277-278, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). Instead of considering the facts as a whole, the panel majority took them one by one. For example, it dismissed the fact that the partygoers "scattered or hid when the police entered the house" because that fact was "not sufficient standing alone to create probable cause." 765 F.3d, at 23 (emphasis added). Similarly, it found "nothing in the record suggesting that the condition of the house, on its own, should have alerted the [partygoers] that they were unwelcome." Ibid. (emphasis added). The totality-of-the-circumstances test "precludes this sort of divide-and-conquer analysis." Arvizu, 534 U.S., at 274, 122 S.Ct. 744.
Second, the panel majority mistakenly believed that it could dismiss outright any circumstances that were "susceptible of innocent explanation." Id., at 277, 122 S.Ct. 744. For example, the panel majority brushed aside the drinking and the lap dances as "consistent with" the partygoers' explanation that they were having a bachelor party. 765 F.3d, at 23. And it similarly dismissed the condition of the house as "entirely consistent with" Peaches being a "new tenant." Ibid. But probable cause does not require officers to rule out a suspect's innocent explanation for suspicious facts. As we have explained, "the relevant inquiry is not whether particular conduct is 'innocent' or 'guilty,' but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts." Gates, 462 U.S., at 244, n. 13, 103 S.Ct. 2317. Thus, the panel majority should have asked whether a reasonable officer could conclude-considering all of the surrounding circumstances, including the plausibility of the explanation itself-that there was a "substantial chance of criminal activity." Ibid.
The circumstances here certainly suggested criminal activity. As explained, the officers found a group of people who claimed to be having a bachelor party with no bachelor, in a near-empty house, with strippers in the living room and sexual activity in the bedroom, and who fled at the first sign of police. The panel majority identified innocent explanations for most of these circumstances in isolation, but again, this kind of divide-and-conquer approach is improper. A factor viewed in isolation is often more "readily susceptible to an innocent explanation" than one viewed as part of a totality. Arvizu,supra, at 274, 122 S.Ct. 744 And here, the totality of the circumstances gave the officers plenty of reasons to doubt the partygoers' protestations of innocence.
For all of these reasons, we reverse the D.C. Circuit's holding that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest. Accordingly, the District and its officers are entitled to summary judgment on all of the partygoers' claims.
IV
Our conclusion that the officers had probable cause to arrest the partygoers is sufficient to resolve this case. But where, as here, the Court of Appeals erred on both the merits of the constitutional claim and the question of qualified immunity, "we have discretion to correct its errors at each step." Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) ; see, e.g., Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014). We exercise that discretion here because the D.C. Circuit's analysis, if followed elsewhere, would "undermine the values qualified immunity seeks to promote." al-Kidd, supra, at 735, 131 S.Ct. 2074.
A
Under our precedents, officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was "clearly established at the time." Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012). "Clearly established" means that, at the time of the officer's conduct, the law was " 'sufficiently clear' that every 'reasonable official would understand that what he is doing' " is unlawful. al-Kidd, supra, at 741, 131 S.Ct. 2074 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) ). In other words, existing law must have placed the constitutionality of the officer's conduct "beyond debate." al-Kidd, supra, at 741, 131 S.Ct. 2074. This demanding standard protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).
To be clearly established, a legal principle must have a sufficiently clear foundation in then-existing precedent. The rule must be "settled law," Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228, 112 S.Ct. 534, 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991) (per curiam ), which means it is dictated by "controlling authority" or "a robust 'consensus of cases of persuasive authority,' " al-Kidd, supra, at 741-742, 131 S.Ct. 2074 (quoting Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 617, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) ). It is not enough that the rule is suggested by then-existing precedent. The precedent must be clear enough that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply. See Reichle, 566 U.S., at 666, 132 S.Ct. 2088. Otherwise, the rule is not one that "every reasonable official" would know. Id., at 664, 132 S.Ct. 2088 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The "clearly established" standard also requires that the legal principle clearly prohibit the officer's conduct in the particular circumstances before him. The rule's contours must be so well defined that it is "clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). This requires a high "degree of specificity." Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 305, 309, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) (per curiam ). We have repeatedly stressed that courts must not "define clearly established law at a high level of generality, since doing so avoids the crucial question whether the official acted reasonably in the particular circumstances that he or she faced." Plumhoff, supra, at 2023 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A rule is too general if the unlawfulness of the officer's conduct "does not follow immediately from the conclusion that [the rule] was firmly established." Anderson, supra, at 641, 107 S.Ct. 3034. In the context of a warrantless arrest, the rule must obviously resolve "whether 'the circumstances with which [the particular officer] was confronted ... constitute[d] probable cause.' " Mullenix , supra, at 309 (quoting Anderson, supra, at 640-641, 107 S.Ct. 3034 ; some alterations in original).
We have stressed that the "specificity" of the rule is "especially important in the Fourth Amendment context." Mullenix, supra, at 308. Probable cause "turn[s] on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts" and cannot be "reduced to a neat set of legal rules." Gates, 462 U.S., at 232, 103 S.Ct. 2317. It is "incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages." Pringle, 540 U.S., at 371, 124 S.Ct. 795. Given its imprecise nature, officers will often find it difficult to know how the general standard of probable cause applies in "the precise situation encountered." Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 1866, 198 L.Ed.2d 290 (2017). Thus, we have stressed the need to "identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances ... was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment." White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 548, 552, 196 L.Ed.2d 463 (2017) (per curiam ); e.g., Plumhoff, supra, at 2023. While there does not have to be "a case directly on point," existing precedent must place the lawfulness of the particular arrest "beyond debate." al-Kidd, supra, at 741, 131 S.Ct. 2074. Of course, there can be the rare "obvious case," where the unlawfulness of the officer's conduct is sufficiently clear even though existing precedent does not address similar circumstances. Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199, 125 S.Ct. 596, 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004) (per curiam ). But "a body of relevant case law" is usually necessary to " 'clearly establish' the answer" with respect to probable cause. Ibid.
Under these principles, we readily conclude that the officers here were entitled to qualified immunity. We start by defining "the circumstances with which [the officers] w[ere] confronted."
Anderson, 483 U.S., at 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034. The officers found a group of people in a house that the neighbors had identified as vacant, that appeared to be vacant, and that the partygoers were treating as vacant. The group scattered, and some hid, at the sight of law enforcement. Their explanations for being at the house were full of holes. The source of their claimed invitation admitted that she had no right to be in the house, and the owner confirmed that fact.
Even assuming the officers lacked actual probable cause to arrest the partygoers, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because they "reasonably but mistakenly conclude[d] that probable cause [wa]s present." Id., at 641, 107 S.Ct. 3034. Tellingly, neither the panel majority nor the partygoers have identified a single precedent-much less a controlling case or robust consensus of cases-finding a Fourth Amendment violation "under similar circumstances." Pauly, supra, at 552. And it should go without saying that this is not an "obvious case" where "a body of relevant case law" is not needed. Brosseau, supra, at 199, 125 S.Ct. 596. The officers were thus entitled to qualified immunity.
B
The panel majority did not follow this straightforward analysis. It instead reasoned that, under clearly established District law, a suspect's "good purpose and bona fide belief of her right to enter" vitiates probable cause to arrest her for unlawful entry. 765 F.3d, at 26-27. The panel majority then concluded-in a two-sentence paragraph without any explanation-that the officers must have known that "uncontroverted evidence of an invitation to enter the premises would vitiate probable cause for unlawful entry." Id., at 27. By treating the invitation as "uncontroverted evidence," the panel majority assumed that the officers could not infer the partygoers' intent from other circumstances. And by treating the invitation as if it automatically vitiated probable cause, the panel majority assumed that the officers could not disbelieve the partygoers' story.
The rule applied by the panel majority was not clearly established because it was not "settled law." Hunter, 502 U.S., at 228, 112 S.Ct. 534. The panel majority relied on a single decision, Smith v. United States, 281 A.2d 438 (D.C.1971). The defendant in Smith, who was found trespassing in a locked construction site near midnight, asserted that he was entitled to a jury instruction explaining that a bona fide belief of a right to enter is a complete defense to unlawful entry. Id., at 439-440. The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to give the instruction because the defendant had not established a "reasonable basis" for his alleged bona fide belief. Ibid. Smith does not say anything about whether the officers here could infer from all the evidence that the partygoers knew that they were trespassing.
Nor would it have been clear to every reasonable officer that, in these circumstances, the partygoers' bona fide belief that they were invited to the house was "uncontroverted." The officers knew that the partygoers had entered the home against the will of the owner. And District case law suggested that officers can infer a suspect's guilty state of mind based solely on his conduct. In Tillman v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 695 A.2d 94 (D.C.1997), for example, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that officers had probable cause to believe the plaintiff knowingly entered the paid area of a subway station without paying. Id., at 96. The court rejected the argument that "the officers had no reason to believe that [the suspect] was 'knowingly' in the paid area" because the officers "reasonably could have inferred from [the suspect's] undisputed conduct that he had the intent required." Ibid. The court emphasized that officers can rely on "the ordinary and reasonable inference that people know what they are doing when they act." Ibid. The court also noted that "it would be an unusual case where the circumstances, while undoubtedly proving an unlawful act, nonetheless demonstrated so clearly that the suspect lacked the required intent that the police would not even have probable cause for an arrest."Ibid. And the fact that a case is unusual, we have held, is "an important indication ... that [the officer's] conduct did not violate a 'clearly established' right." Pauly, 580 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 552.
Moreover, existing precedent would have given the officers reason to doubt that they had to accept the partygoers' assertion of a bona fide belief. The D.C. Court of Appeals has held that officers are not required to take a suspect's innocent explanation at face value. See, e.g., Nichols v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 322 A.2d 283, 286 (D.C.1974) (holding that an officer was not "obliged to believe the explanation of a suspected shoplifter"). Similar precedent exists in the Federal Courts of Appeals, which have recognized that officers are free to disregard either all innocent explanations, or at least innocent explanations that are inherently or circumstantially implausible. These cases suggest that innocent explanations-even uncontradicted ones-do not have any automatic, probable-cause-vitiating effect.
For these reasons, a reasonable officer, looking at the entire legal landscape at the time of the arrests, could have interpreted the law as permitting the arrests here. There was no controlling case holding that a bona fide belief of a right to enter defeats probable cause, that officers cannot infer a suspect's guilty state of mind based on his conduct alone, or that officers must accept a suspect's innocent explanation at face value. Indeed, several precedents suggested the opposite. The officers were thus entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
* * *
The judgment of the D.C. Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
I agree with the majority that the officers here are entitled to qualified immunity and, for that reason alone, I concur in the Court's judgment reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. But, I disagree with the majority's decision to reach the merits of the probable-cause question, which it does apparently only to ensure that, in addition to respondents' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, the Court's decision will resolve respondents' state-law claims of false arrest and negligent supervision. See ante, at 589, n. 7. It is possible that our qualified-immunity decision alone will resolve those claims. See Reply Brief 20, n. 7. In light of the lack of a dispute on an important legal question and the heavily factbound nature of the probable-cause determination here, I do not think that the Court should have reached that issue. The lower courts are well equipped to handle the remaining state-law claims in the first instance.
This case, well described in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, leads me to question whether this Court, in assessing probable cause, should continue to ignore why police in fact acted. See ante, at 584, n. 2. No arrests of plaintiffs-respondents were made until Sergeant Suber so instructed. His instruction, when conveyed to the officers he superintended, was based on an error of law. Sergeant Suber believed that the absence of the premises owner's consent, an uncontested fact in this case, sufficed to justify arrest of the partygoers for unlawful entry. See App. 60 (Suber deposition) (officers had probable cause to arrest because "Peaches did not have the right, nor did the [partygoers] have the right[,] to be inside that location"). An essential element of unlawful entry in the District of Columbia is that the defendant "knew or should have known that his entry was unwanted." Ortberg v. United States, 81 A.3d 303, 308 (D.C.2013). But under Sergeant Suber's view of the law, what the arrestees knew or should have known was irrelevant. They could be arrested, as he comprehended the law, even if they believed their entry was invited by a lawful occupant.
Ultimately, plaintiffs-respondents were not booked for unlawful entry. Instead, they were charged at the police station with disorderly conduct. Yet no police officers at the site testified to having observed any activities warranting a disorderly conduct charge. Quite the opposite. The officers at the scene of the arrest uniformly testified that they had neither seen nor heard anything that would justify such a charge, and Sergeant Suber specifically advised his superiors that the charge was unwarranted. See 765 F.3d 13, 18 (C.A.D.C.2014) ; App. 56, 62-63, 79, 84, 90, 103.
The Court's jurisprudence, I am concerned, sets the balance too heavily in favor of police unaccountability to the detriment of Fourth Amendment protection. A number of commentators have criticized the path we charted in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), and follow-on opinions, holding that "an arresting officer's state of mind ... is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause," Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 153, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004). See, e.g., 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 1.4(f), p. 186 (5th ed. 2012) ("The apparent assumption of the Court in Whren, that no significant problem of police arbitrariness can exist as to actions taken with probable cause, blinks at reality."). I would leave open, for reexamination in a future case, whether a police officer's reason for acting, in at least some circumstances, should factor into the Fourth Amendment inquiry. Given the current state of the Court's precedent, however, I agree that the disposition gained by plaintiffs-respondents was not warranted by "settled law." The defendants-petitioners are therefore sheltered by qualified immunity.
In their merits brief, the partygoers attempt to dispute several of these facts. See Brief for Respondents 26-30. But the facts they now contest were presented in the petition for a writ of certiorari, and the partygoers did not contest them in their brief in opposition. Under this Court's Rule 15.2, the partygoers' failure to contest these factual assertions at the certiorari stage waived their right to do so at the merits stage. See Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379, 395-396, 129 S.Ct. 1058, 172 L.Ed.2d 791 (2009).
Furthermore, although both parties moved for summary judgment, the undisputed facts here are sufficient to resolve both probable cause and qualified immunity. Our analysis thus would not change no matter which party is considered the moving party. Cf. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378-379, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (explaining that, at summary judgment, courts must view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party).
Because probable cause is an objective standard, an arrest is lawful if the officer had probable cause to arrest for any offense, not just the offense cited at the time of arrest or booking. See Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 153-155, and n. 2, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004). Because unlawful entry is the only offense that the District and its officers discuss in their briefs to this Court, we likewise limit our analysis to that offense.
The District Court granted summary judgment against two of the officers, but denied summary judgment against the other three because there were triable issues regarding qualified immunity. See 841 F.Supp.2d 20, 32-46 (D.D.C.2012). The partygoers voluntarily dismissed their claims against those three officers. See 765 F.3d 13, 17 (C.A.D.C.2014).
At oral argument, the partygoers argued that the house was not formally "vacant" under District law. Tr. of Oral Arg. 34. But a reasonable officer could infer that the complaining neighbors used the term "vacant" in the colloquial, not the legal, sense.
The panel majority dismissed this fact because the officers "did not see any evidence of drugs" and did "not attempt to justify [the] arrests" based on drug use. 765 F.3d, at 23, n. 5. But a reasonable officer could infer, based on the smell, that marijuana had been used in the house. See Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948) (noting that "the odor" of narcotics can "be evidence of the most persuasive character"). And the officers could consider the drug use inside the house as evidence that the partygoers knew their presence was unwelcome.
The partygoers do not contest that the presence of probable cause defeats all of their claims.
We continue to stress that lower courts "should think hard, and then think hard again," before addressing both qualified immunity and the merits of an underlying constitutional claim. Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 707, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011). We addressed the merits of probable cause here, however, because a decision on qualified immunity alone would not have resolved all of the claims in this case.
We have not yet decided what precedents-other than our own-qualify as controlling authority for purposes of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 665-666, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012) (reserving the question whether court of appeals decisions can be "a dispositive source of clearly established law"). We express no view on that question here. Relatedly, our citation to and discussion of various lower court precedents should not be construed as agreeing or disagreeing with them, or endorsing a particular reading of them. See City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. ----, ----, n. 4, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 1776-1777, n. 4, 191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015). Instead, we address only how a reasonable official "could have interpreted" them. Reichle, supra, at 667, 132 S.Ct. 2088.
The officers cited many of these authorities in their opening brief to the Court of Appeals. See Brief for Appellants in No. 12-7127 (CADC), pp. 28-29. Yet the panel majority failed to mention any of them in its analysis of qualified immunity.
See, e.g., Borgman v. Kedley, 646 F.3d 518, 524 (C.A.8 2011) ("[An officer] need not rely on an explanation given by the suspect"); Cox v. Hainey, 391 F.3d 25, 32, n. 2 (C.A.1 2004) ("A reasonable police officer is not required to credit a suspect's story"); Marx v. Gumbinner, 905 F.2d 1503, 1507, n. 6 (C.A.11 1990) ("[Officers a]re not required to forego arresting [a suspect] based on initially discovered facts showing probable cause simply because [the suspect] offered a different explanation"); Criss v. Kent, 867 F.2d 259, 263 (C.A.6 1988) ("A policeman ... is under no obligation to give any credence to a suspect's story ...").
See e.g., Ramirez v. Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1024 (C.A.9 2009) (holding that "innocent explanations for [a suspect's] odd behavior cannot eliminate the suspicious facts" and that "law enforcement officers do not have to rule out the possibility of innocent behavior" (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Edwards, 632 F.3d 633, 640 (C.A.10 2001) (holding that probable cause existed where the suspect "offered only implausible, inconsistent explanations of how he came into possession of the money"); Bradway v. Gonzales, 26 F.3d 313, 321 (C.A.2 1994) (holding that "[a] reasonable officer who found the [stolen items], and who heard [the suspect's] implausible explanation for possessing them, would have believed that probable cause existed").
The Court's account of the undisputed facts goes beyond those recited by the Court of Appeals. Compare ante, at 582 - 584, with 765 F.3d 13, 17-18 (C.A.D.C.2014). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York. | What is the court in which the case originated? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims",
"United States Supreme Court"
] | [
45
] | sc |
November 14, 1955.
No. 44.
Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, v. Myrtle Grove Packing Co.
With her on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Gray Thoron, Stuart Rothman and Harold S. Saxe. W. L. Guice argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Certiorari, 349 U. S. 937, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Argued November 10, 1955. Decided November 14, 1955.
Per Curiam:
The Court, agreeing with the construction of the Fair Labor Standards Act given it by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Tobin v. Blue Channel Corp., 198 F. 2d 245, reverses the judgments below. Bessie Margolin argued the cause for petitioner. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the reason, if any, given by the court for granting the petition for certiorari. | What reason, if any, does the court give for granting the petition for certiorari? | [
"case did not arise on cert or cert not granted",
"federal court conflict",
"federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question",
"putative conflict",
"conflict between federal court and state court",
"state court conflict",
"federal court confusion or uncertainty",
"state court confusion or uncertainty",
"federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty",
"to resolve important or significant question",
"to resolve question presented",
"no reason given",
"other reason"
] | [
11
] | sc |
McGILL et al. v. RYALS, SHERIFF, et al.
No. 381,
Misc.
Decided October 17, 1966.
Vernon Z. Crawford, Morton Stavis, William M. Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy and Benjamin E. Smith for appellants.
Truman Hobbs for appellees.
Per Curiam.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the case was not appropriate for a three-judge court.
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that a three-judge court was properly convened and would affirm the judgment of the lower court. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence. | What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision? | [
"judicial review (national level)",
"judicial review (state level)",
"Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction",
"statutory construction",
"interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order",
"diversity jurisdiction",
"federal common law"
] | [
2
] | sc |
GURLEY, dba GURLEY OIL CO. v. RHODEN, CHAIRMAN, TAX COMMISSION OF MISSISSIPPI
No. 73-1734.
Argued March 18, 1975
Decided May 12, 1975
BrennaN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined except Douglas, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Charles R. Davis argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Walter A. Armstrong, Jr.
Hunter M. Gholson argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was William G. Bur gin, Jr.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mississippi imposes a 5% sales tax upon the “gross proceeds of the retail sales” of tangible personal property, including gasoline. Miss. Code Ann. §27-65-17 (Supp. 1974), Petitioner operates as a sole proprietorship from West Memphis, Ark. He owns and operates five gasoline service stations in Mississippi and also sells gasoline at four other stations in Mississippi on a consignment basis. He purchases his gasoline tax free from sources in Tennessee and Arkansas. He transports the gasoline to his Mississippi stations in his own trucks. He holds a Mississippi distributor’s permit and is also federally licensed because he is a “producer” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code as one who sells gasoline bought tax free from other “producers.” He adds to his pump prices the amount of a Mississippi gasoline excise tax, now nine cents per gallon, Miss. Code Ann. § 27-55-11 (Supp. 1974), and a federal gasoline excise tax of four cents per gallon, 26 U. S. C. § 4081 (a). The State computes his gross proceeds of retail sales “without any deduction for . . . taxes of any kind . . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 27-65-3 (h) (Supp. 1974). Petitioner contends that the denial of a deduction of the amount of the excise taxes added to his pump prices in the computation of his “gross proceeds of the retail sales” of gasoline, and the resultant application of the 5% sales tax to so much of his pump prices as reflects the amount of the taxes, are unconstitutional. He therefore paid the sales taxes to that extent under protest, and sued for a refund in Mississippi Chancery Court, Hinds County. Respondent cross-claimed for unpaid sales taxes accruing after the filing of the suit. After trial, the Chancery Court dismissed petitioner’s suit and entered judgment for respondent on the cross-claim. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed. 288 So. 2d 868. We granted certiorari, 419 U. S. 1018 (1974). We affirm.
I
Petitioner’s principal argument is that he acts as a mere collector of the taxes for the two governments because the legal incidence of both excise taxes is upon the purchaser-consumer. Upon that premise, he argues: “Consequently, to impose the Mississippi sales tax upon amounts so received by [petitioner] would be to tax him upon gross receipts which are not his gross receipts, but rather the gross receipts of [the two governments]. This would not only violate the fundamental conception of right and justice, but it would be taking [petitioner’s] property without due process of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .” Brief for Petitioner 37. He cites in support the statement in Hoeper v. Tax Comm’n, 284 U. S. 206, 215 (1931), that “any attempt by a state to measure the tax on one person’s property or income by reference to the property or income of another is contrary to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Also, petitioner advances an alternative argument limited to the denial of the deduction of the amount of the federal excise tax. He contends that the denial results to that extent in “a state tax on . . . monies held in trust by [petitioner] as agent for the United States [and] is, in essence, a tax upon the United States . . . [that] ... is clearly unconstitutional” as violating the constitutional immunity of the United States and its property from taxation by the States. M‘Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). Brief for Petitioner 48.
Petitioner’s arguments can prevail, as he apparently concedes, only if the legal incidence of the excise taxes is not upon petitioner, but upon the purchaser-consumer. Our task therefore is to determine upon whom the legal incidence of each tax rests.
II
The economic burden of taxes incident to the sale of merchandise is traditionally passed on to the purchasers of the merchandise. Therefore, the decision as to where the legal incidence of either tax falls is not determined by the fact that petitioner, by increasing his pump prices in the amounts of the taxes, shifted the economic burden of the taxes from himself to the purchaser-consumer. The Court has laid to rest doubts on that score raised by such decisions as Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218 (1928); Indian Motorcycle Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 570 (1931); and Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock, 347 U. S. 110 (1954), at least under taxing schemes, as here, where neither statute required petitioner to pass the tax on to the purchaser-consumer. See Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1 (1941); Lash’s Products Co. v. United States, 278 U. S. 175 (1929); Wheeler Lumber Co. v. United States, 281 U. S. 572 (1930); First Agricultural Nat. Bank v. Tax Comm’n, 392 U. S. 339 (1968); American Oil Co. v. Neill, 380 U. S. 451 (1965).
A majority of courts that have considered the question have held, in agreement with the Mississippi Supreme Court in this case, that the legal incidence of the federal excise tax is upon the statutory “producer” such as petitioner and not upon his purchaser-consumer. Martin Oil Service, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 49 Ill. 2d 260, 273 N. E. 2d 823 (1971); People v. Werner, 364 Ill. 594, 5 N. E. 2d 238 (1936); Sun Oil Co. v. Gross Income Tax Division, 238 Ind. Ill, 149 N. E. 2d 115 (1958); State v. Thoni Oil Magic Benzol Gas Stations, Inc., 121 Ga. App. 454, 174 S. E. 2d 224, aff’d, 226 Ga. 883, 178 S. E. 2d 173 (1970). Contra, see Tax Review Board v. Esso Standard Division, 424 Pa. 355, 227 A. 2d 657 (1967); cf. Standard Oil Co. v. State, 283 Mich. 85, 276 N. W. 908 (1937); Standard Oil Co. v. State Tax Comm’r, 71 N. D. 146, 299 N. W. 447 (1941). Our independent examination of the federal statute and its legislative history persuades us also that the legal incidence of the federal tax falls upon the statutory “producer” such as petitioner.
The wording of the federal statute plainly places the incidence of the tax upon the “producer,” that is, by definition, upon federally licensed distributors of gasoline such as petitioner. Section 4082 (a) provides that “[a]ny person to whom gasoline is sold tax-free . . . shall be considered the producer of such gasoline,” and § 4081 (a) expressly imposes the tax “on gasoline sold by the producer ....’’ (Emphasis added.) The congressional purpose to lay the tax on the “producer” and only upon the “producer” could not be more plainly revealed. Persuasive also that such wTas Congress’ purpose is the fact that, if the producer does not pay the tax, the Government cannot collect it from his vendees; the statute has no provision making the vendee liable for its payment. First Agricultural Nat. Bank v. Tax Comm’n, supra, at 347.
It is true that the purchaser-consumer who buys gasoline for use on his farm, 26 U. S. C. § 6420 (a), or for other nonhighway purposes, § 6421 (a), or for a local transit system, § 6421 (b), can recover payment of all or part of the amount of the tax passed on by the “producer.” But this is not proof that Congress laid the tax upon the purchaser-consumer. Rather, since the proceeds of this tax go not into the general treasury, but into a special fund used to defray the cost of the federal highway system, S. Rep. No. 367, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961), the refunds authorized simply reflect a congressional determination that, because the economic burden of such taxes is traditionally passed on to the purchaser-consumer in the form of increased pump prices, farmers and other off-highway users should be relieved of the economic burden of the cost of the highway program, and that the cost should be borne entirely by motorists who use gasoline to drive on the highways. Martin Oil Service, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, supra, at 265, 273 N. E. 2d, at 827.
Petitioner cites references by President Johnson to the tax as a “user tax” as proving that it is not and never was intended that the tax be imposed upon the “producer,” but rather upon the purchaser-consumer. President Johnson’s message to Congress of May 17, 1965, on the subject of reform of the excise tax structure stated that such “reform . . . will. . . leave . . . excises on alcoholic beverages, tobacco, gasoline, tires, trucks, air transportation (and a few other user-charge and special excises) . . . H. R. Doc. No. 173, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965). (Emphasis added.) Petitioner relies also on the report of the House Committee on Ways and Means accompanying H. R. 8371, H. R. Rep. No. 433, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 12-13 (1965). It states: “Taxes such as those on gasoline . . . are user taxes. ... A tax on. gasoline taxes users of the highways in rough proportion to their use of the service.” (Emphasis added.) These references obviously were not made in the context of consideration of the legal incidence of the gasoline, tax but merely as recognition that the reality is that users bear the economic burden of the tax. These references were rejected in Martin Oil Service, Inc., supra, by the Illinois Supreme Court as irrelevant to the question whether the tax must be considered as one whose incidence rests on the purchaser-consumer. We agree with, and adopt, that court’s analysis:
“We consider the references to the tax as a ‘user tax’ were not intended to be descriptive of the legal incidence of the gasoline tax. It is not disputed that the ultimate economic burden of the tax rests upon the purchaser-consumer. A practical nontechnical description of the tax as a ‘user tax’ is explainable, consistently with the legal incidence of the tax being on the producer. The economic burden of the tax has no relevance to the issue before us.” 49 Ill. 2d, at 264, 273 N. E. 2d, at 826.
We therefore hold that the Mississippi Supreme Court, which relied upon Martin Oil Service, Inc., see 288 So. 2d, at 873, properly concluded that the federal excise tax is imposed solely on statutory “producers” such as petitioner and not on the purchaser.
Ill
The Mississippi Supreme Court held that the legal incidence of the Mississippi excise tax also falls upon petitioner. It is true of course that this Court is the final judicial arbiter of the question where the legal incidence of the federal excise tax falls. But a State’s highest court is the final judicial arbiter of the meaning of state statutes, Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S., at, 9-10, and therefore our review of the holding of a state court respecting the legal incidence of a state excise tax is guided by the following: “When a state court has made its own definitive determination as to the operating incidence, our task is simplified. We give this finding great weight in determining the natural effect of a statute, and if it is consistent with the statute’s reasonable interpretation it will be deemed conclusive.” American Oil Co. v. Neill, 380 U. S., at 455-456.
This is manifestly a case in which the holding of the Mississippi Supreme Court that the legal incidence of the state excise tax falls upon petitioner should be “deemed conclusive.” Mississippi Code Ann. § 27-55-11 (Supp. 1974), provides that the tax “attaches on the distributor or other person for each gallon of gasoline brought into the state . . .” in the case of distribution of gasoline by distributors, such as petitioner, who bring gasoline into Mississippi “by means other than through a common carrier.” The Mississippi Supreme Court relied primarily upon this provision in reaching its conclusion, and we cannot say that its conclusion is not “consistent with the statute’s reasonable interpretation.”
Our determination is buttressed by the holding of a three-judge District Court in United States v. Sharp, 302 F. Supp. 668 (SD Miss. 1969). The United States sought a declaratory judgment that the Mississippi tax was invalid with respect to gasoline purchased by the Federal Government, its agencies, and personnel when used on Mississippi highways on Government business. The three-judge court held that the legal incidence of the state tax was upon the distributor-vendor and not upon the purchaser United States, and dismissed the action. The court stated:
“We do not quarrel with the contention that a statute’s practical operation and effect determines where the legal incidence of the tax falls. We simply agree that the tax burden in the Mississippi statute falls plainly and squarely on the distributor to whom the state looks for the payment of the tax, albeit the amount of the tax may ultimately be borne by the vendee, in this case the federal government.” Id., at 671.
Petitioner argues, however, that the decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court is foreclosed by this Court’s decision in Panhandle Oil Co. v. Knox, 277 U. S. 218 (1928). The argument is without merit. In that case Mississippi sued Panhandle Oil Co. to recover gasoline excise taxes imposed by Chapter 116 of the 1922 Laws of Mississippi, as amended, a predecessor to the present Miss. Code Ann. § 27-55-11. The taxes claimed were on account of sales madé by Panhandle to the United States for the use of its Coast Guard Fleet in service in the Gulf of Mexico, and of its Veterans’ Hospital at Gulfport, Miss.' The Court, over the dissents of Justices Holmes, Brandéis, Stone, and McReynolds, held that the tax as applied was invalid as a tax upon the means used by the United States for governmental purposes. The dissenters’ view was that it was not a tax upon means used by the United States, but that Panhandle merely shifted the economic burden of the tax to its vendees by adding it to the price of the gasoline.
The Court’s Panhandle opinion did not focus upon whether the Mississippi statute laid the legal incidence of the tax upon the distributor. Rather, the rationale was that the tax was bad because, if laid upon distributors, the distributors were able to shift its burden to the purchaser. The Court has since expressly abandoned that view, and has accepted the analysis of the dissent. In Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S., at 9, the Court held: “So far as a different view has prevailed, see Panhandle Oil Co. v. Knox ... , we think it no longer tenable.”
IV
Finally, petitioner argues that even if the legal incidence of the two taxes is on him rather than on the consumer, the provision of § 27-65-17 denying the deduction of the taxes in the computation of his “gross proceeds of . . . retail sales” is invalid for two reasons.
First, he argues: “Since [petitioner] sells only to the ultimate consumer, the excise tax attaches simultaneously with the sale and with the sales tax; therefore, there can be no sales tax upon the excise tax.” Brief for Petitioner 47. In other words, his argument is that the liability for the excise taxes, state and federal, and the liability for the sales tax arise simultaneously, and in that circumstance, one should not be included in computing the other. We read the opinion of the Mississippi Supreme Court to reject this argument and to hold that the taxes fall on the “producer at a time prior to the point of retail sale or other consumer transaction . . . .” 288 So. 2d, at 870. That interpretation of the Mississippi statutes is, of course, binding on us as respects the state excise tax; indeed, the interpretation is not merely “reasonable,” but seems obvious in light of the express provision of § 27-55-11 that in cases of distributors, like petitioner, bringing gasoline into Mississippi in their own trucks the tax “attaches... at the time when and at the point where such gasoline is brought into the state.” Further, we agree with the Mississippi court that the federal tax also attaches prior to the point of the retail sale. However, even if the liability for the excise taxes did arise simultaneously with the sales tax, we cannot see any legal distinction, constitutional or otherwise, arising from that circumstance. The Illinois Supreme Court also addressed this contention when made in Martin Oil Service, Inc., supra, as to the federal excise tax, and rejected it for the following reasons, with which we agree.
“The legal incidence of the Federal gasoline tax is on the producer, who is under no legal duty to pass the burden of the tax on to the consumer. If he does pass on the burden of the tax it is simply done by charging the consumer a higher price. This higher price is the result of the added cost, because of the burden of the Federal tax, to the producer in selling his gasoline. It is no different from other costs he incurs in bringing his product to market, including the costs of raw material, its processing and its delivery. All these costs are includable in his ‘gross receipts’ or the ‘consideration’ he receives for his gasoline. No reason has been given... why the cost of the gasoline tax should be regarded differently from the other costs of the producer-retailer and we perceive none.” 49 Ill. 2d, at 268, 273 N. E. 2d, at 828.
Second, petitioner argues that “since other independent oil dealers in those states which do not include the federal excise tax as a part of the sales tax base would not be forced to pay such tax [e. g., Pennsylvania, see Tax Review Board v. Esso Standard, supra], then the arbitrary imposition of such tax upon [petitioner] and those other independent oil dealers in his class (who have to pay a sales tax on federal excise tax) would deprive [petitioner] of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee to equal protection of the laws.” Brief for Petitioner 21. The contention is patently frivolous. The prohibition of the Equal Protection Clause is against denial by the State, here Mississippi, as between taxpayers subject to its laws. Petitioner makes no claim of unconstitutional discrimination by Mississippi in the application of its sales tax Act to taxpayers subject to that tax.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 27-65-17 provides in pertinent part:
“Upon every person engaging or continuing within this state in the business of selling any tangible personal property whatsoever, there is hereby levied, assessed and shall be collected a tax equal to five percent (5%) of the gross proceeds of the retail sales of the business, except as otherwise provided herein. . . .”
26 ü. S. C. §4082 (a), n. 3, infra.
Mississippi Code Ann. §27-55-11 provides:
“Any person in business as a distributor of gasoline . . . shall pay for the privilege of engaging in such business ... an excise tax equal to [specified] cents per gallon on all gasoline . . . sold ... in this state for sale [or] use on the highways ....
“With respect to distributors . . . who bring . . . into this state gasoline by means other than through a common carrier, the tax accrues and the tax liability attaches on the distributor ... at the time when and at the point where such gasoline is brought into the state.”
Title 26 TJ. S. C. §4081 (a) provides:
“In general. There is hereby imposed on gasoline sold by the producer or importer thereof, or by any producer of gasoline, a tax of 4 cents a gallon.”
Title 26 U. S. C. §4082 (a) provides in pertinent part: “Producer. . . . Any person to whom gasoline is sold tax-free under this subpart shall be considered the producer of such gasoline.”
Section 27-65-3 (h) provides in pertinent part:
“ ‘Gross proceeds of sales’ means the value proceeding or accruing from the full sale price of tangible personal property . .. without any deduction for . . . taxes of any kind except those expressly exempt....”
Petitioner sought refunds of $62,782.57, and respondent cross-claimed for $29,131.19.
Act of June 8, 1966, e. 645, Miss. Gen. Laws 1343, 1347, in effect during some of the tax years involved, but since repealed, provided only that the excise tax “may be passed on to the ultimate consumer . . . .” (Emphasis added.) In contrast, the Massachusetts sales tax law before us in First Agricultural Nat. Bank. v. Tax Comm’n, 392 U. S. 339 (1968), expressly provided that the tax “ ‘shall be paid by the purchaser/ ” and that the vendor “ ‘shall add to the sales price and shall collect from the purchaser the full amount of the tax imposed.’ ” Id., at 347. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. | What is the issue area of the decision? | [
"Criminal Procedure",
"Civil Rights",
"First Amendment",
"Due Process",
"Privacy",
"Attorneys",
"Unions",
"Economic Activity",
"Judicial Power",
"Federalism",
"Interstate Relations",
"Federal Taxation",
"Miscellaneous",
"Private Action"
] | [
7
] | sc |
WEISS v. UNITED STATES
No. 92-1482.
Argued November 3,1993
Decided January 19, 1994
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Black-mun, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined, and in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II-A. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 182. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 194. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined, post, p. 195.
Alan B. Morrison argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Philip D. Cave, Dwight H. Sullivan, Eugene R. Fidell, and Ronald W. Meister.
Solicitor General Days argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Assistant At torney General Keeney, Deputy Solicitor General Bryson, Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Thomas E. Booth, Theodore G. Hess, and Albert Diaz.
Together with Hernandez v. United States, also on certiorari to the same court (see this Court’s Rule 12.2).
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by David B. Isbell, John Vanderstar, David H. Resnicoff, Steven R. Shapiro, and Arthur B. Spitzer; and for the United States Air Force Appellate Defense Division by Robert I. Smith, Jay L. Cohen, and Frank J. Spinner.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We must decide in these cases whether the current method of appointing military judges violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, and whether the lack of a fixed term of office for military judges violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. We conclude that neither constitutional provision is violated.
Petitioner Weiss, a United States Marine, pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to one count of larceny, in violation of Article 121 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ or Code), 10 U. S. C. § 921. He was sentenced to three months of confinement, partial forfeiture of pay, and a bad-conduct discharge. Petitioner Hernandez, also a Marine, pleaded guilty to the possession, importation, and distribution of cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 912a, and conspiracy, in violation of Article 81, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §881. He was sentenced to 25 years of confinement, forfeiture of all pay, a reduction in rank, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority reduced Hernandez’ sentence to 20 years of confinement.
The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, in separate appeals, affirmed petitioners’ convictions. The Court of Military Appeals granted plenary review in petitioner Weiss’ case to address his contention that the judges in his case had no authority to convict him because their appointments violated the Appointments Clause, and their lack of a fixed term of office violated the Due Process Clause. Relying on its recent decision in United States v. Graf, 35 M. J. 450 (1992), cert. pending, No. 92-1102, in which the court unanimously held that due process does not require military judges to have a fixed term of office, the court rejected Weiss’ due process argument. 36 M. J. 224, 235, n. 1 (1992). In a splintered decision, the court also rejected petitioner’s Appointments Clause challenge.
Two of the five judges concluded that the initial appointment of military trial and appellate judges as commissioned officers is sufficient to satisfy the Appointments Clause. Id., at 225-234 (plurality opinion). A separate appointment before taking on the duties of a military judge is unnecessary, according to the plurality, in part because the duties of a judge in the military justice system are germane to the duties that military officers already discharge. Ibid. One judge concurred in the result only, concluding that the Appointments Clause does not apply to the military. Id., at 234-240 (opinion of Crawford, J.). The other two judges dissented separately. Both stressed the significant changes brought about by the Military Justice Act of 1968, particularly the duties added to the newly created office of military judge, and both concluded that the duties of a military judge are sufficiently distinct from the other duties performed by military officers to require a second appointment. See id., at 240-256 (Sullivan, C. J., dissenting), and id., at 256-263 (Wiss, J., dissenting).
The Court of Military Appeals accordingly affirmed petitioner Weiss’ conviction. Based on its decision in Weiss, the court, in an unpublished opinion, also affirmed petitioner Hernandez’ conviction. Judgt. order reported at 37 M. J. 252 (1993). Weiss and Hernandez then jointly petitioned for our review, and we granted certiorari. 508 U. S. 939 (1993).
It will help in understanding the issues involved to review briefly the contours of the military justice system and the role of military judges within that system. Pursuant to Ar-tide I of the Constitution, Congress has established three tiers of military courts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 14. At the trial level are the courts-martial, of which there are three types: summary, special, and general. The summary court-martial adjudicates only minor offenses, has jurisdiction only over servicemembers, and can be conducted only with their consent. It is presided over by a single commissioned officer who can impose up to one month of confinement and other relatively modest punishments. Arts. 16(3), 20, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §§816(3), 820.
The special court-martial usually consists of a military judge and three court-martial members, although the Code allows the members to sit without a judge, or the accused to elect to be tried by the judge alone. Art. 16(2), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 816(2). A special court-martial has jurisdiction over most offenses under the UCMJ, but it may impose punishment no greater than six months of confinement, three months of hard labor without confinement, a bad-conduct discharge, partial and temporary forfeiture of pay, and a reduction in grade. Art. 19, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §819. The general court-martial consists of either a military judge and at least five members, or the judge alone if the accused so requests. Art. 16(1), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §816(1). A general court-martial has jurisdiction over all offenses under the UCMJ and may impose any lawful sentence, including death. Art. 18, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §818.
The military judge, a position that has officially existed only since passage of the Military Justice Act of 1968, acts as presiding officer at a special or general court-martial. Art. 26, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 826. The judge rules on all legal questions, and instructs court-martial members regarding the law and procedures to be followed. Art. 51, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 851. The members decide guilt or innocence and impose sentence unless, of course, the trial is before the judge alone. Ibid. No sentence imposed becomes final until it is approved by the officer who convened the court-martial. Art. 60, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §860.
Military trial judges must be commissioned officers of the Armed Forces and members of the bar of a federal court or a State’s highest court. Art. 26, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §826. The judges are selected and certified as qualified by the Judge Advocate General of their branch of the Armed Forces. They do not serve for fixed terms and may perform judicial duties only when assigned to do so by the appropriate Judge Advocate General. While serving as judges, officers may also, with the approval of the Judge Advocate General, perform other tasks unrelated to their judicial duties. Ibid. There are approximately 74 judges currently certified to preside at general and special courts-martial. An additional 25 are certified to preside only over special courts-martial.
At the next tier are the four Courts of Military Review, one each for the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Navy-Marine Corps. These courts, which usually sit in three-judge panels, review all cases in which the sentence imposed is for one or more years of confinement, involves the dismissal of a commissioned officer, or involves the punitive discharge of an enlisted servicemember. Art. 66, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 866. The courts may review de novo both factual and legal findings, and they may overturn convictions and sentences. Ibid.
Appellate judges may be commissioned officers or civilians, but each must be a member of a bar of a federal court or of a State’s highest court. Ibid. The judges are selected and assigned to serve by the appropriate Judge Advocate General. Ibid. Like military trial judges, appellate judges do not serve for a fixed term. There are presently 31 appellate military judges.
Atop the system is the Court of Military Appeals, which consists of five civilian judges who are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for fixed terms of 15 years. Arts. 67, 142, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §§ 867, 942 (1988 ed., Supp. IV). The appointment and tenure of these judges are not at issue here.
I
The Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution reads as follows:
“[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” U. S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 2.
We begin our analysis on common ground. The parties do not dispute that military judges, because of the authority and responsibilities they possess, act as “Officers” of the United States. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868 (1991) (concluding special trial judges of Tax Court are officers); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 126 (1976) (“[A]ny appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an ‘Officer of the United States,’ and must, therefore, be appointed in the manner prescribed by [the Appointments Clause]”). The parties are also in agreement, and rightly so, that the Appointments Clause applies to military officers. As we said in Buckley, “all officers of the United States are to be appointed in accordance with the Clause.... No class or type of officer is excluded because of its special functions.” Id., at 132 (emphasis in original).
It follows that those serving as military judges must be appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause. All of the military judges involved in these cases, however, were already commissioned officers when they were assigned to serve as judges, and thus they had already been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The question we must answer, therefore, is whether these officers needed another appointment pursuant to the Appointments Clause before assuming their judicial duties. Petitioners contend that the position of military judge is so different from other positions to which an officer may be assigned that either Congress has, by implication, required a second appointment, or the Appointments Clause, by constitutional command, requires one. We reject both of these arguments.
Petitioners’ argument that Congress by implication has required a separate appointment is based in part on the fact that military judges must possess certain qualifications, in-eluding membership in a state or federal bar. But such special qualifications in themselves do not, we believe, indicate a congressional intent to create a separate office. Special qualifications are needed to perform a host of military duties; yet no one could seriously contend that the positions of military lawyer or pilot, for example, are distinct offices because officers performing those duties must possess additional qualifications.
Petitioners’ argument also ignores the fact that Congress has not hesitated to expressly require the separate appointment of military officers to certain positions. An additional appointment by the President and confirmation by the Senate is required for a number of top-level positions in the military hierarchy, including: the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 10 U. S. C. §§ 152, 154; the Chief and Vice Chief of Naval Operations, §§ 5033, 5035; the Commandant and Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, §§ 5043, 5044; the Surgeons General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, §§3036, 5137, 8036; the Chief of Naval Personnel, § 5141; the Chief of Chaplains, § 5142; and the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, §§3037, 5148, 8037.
With respect to other positions, however, Congress has spoken quite differently. The Deputy and Assistant Chiefs of Staff for the Army, for example, are “general officers detailed to these positions.” §3035 (emphasis added). The Chief of Staff of the Marine Corps and his assistants are “detailed” to those positions by the Secretary of the Navy. §5045. Commissioned officers “may be detailed for duty” with the American Red Cross by the appropriate military Secretary. §711a. Secretaries of military departments “may assign or detail members of the armed forces” to be inspectors of buildings owned or occupied abroad by the United States. § 713. The Secretary of the Navy “may assign” enlisted members of the Navy to serve as custodians of foreign embassies and consulates. § 5983. And the President may “detail” officers of the Navy to serve as superintendents or instructors at nautical schools. This contrasting treatment indicates rather clearly that Congress repeatedly and consistently distinguished between an office that would require a separate appointment and a position or duty to which one could be “assigned” or “detailed” by a superior officer.
The sections of the UCMJ relating to military judges speak explicitly and exclusively in terms of “detail” or “assign”; nowhere in these sections is mention made of a separate appointment. Section 826(a) provides that a military judge shall be “detailed]” to each general court-martial, and may be “detailed]” to any special court-martial. The military judge of a general court-martial must be designated by the Judge Advocate General, or his designee, § 826(c), but the appropriate Service Secretary prescribes by regulation the manner in which military judges are detailed for special courts-martial, and what persons are authorized to so detail them. Section 866, in turn, provides that military appellate judges shall be “assigned to a Court of Military Review.” The appropriate Judge Advocate General designates a chief judge for each Court of Military Review, and the chief judge determines “on which panels of the court the appellate judges assigned to the court will serve and which military judge assigned to the court will act as the senior judge on each panel.” Ibid, (emphasis added).
Congress’ treatment of military judges is thus quite different from its treatment of those offices, such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for which it wished to require a second appointment before already-commissioned officers could occupy them. This difference negates any permissible inference that Congress intended that military judges should receive a second appointment, but in a fit of absentmindedness forgot to say so.
Petitioners’ alternative contention is that even if Congress did not intend to require a separate appointment for a military judge, the Appointments Clause requires such an appointment by its own force. They urge upon us in support of this contention our decisions in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976), Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868 (1991), and Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654 (1988). These decisions undoubtedly establish the analytical framework upon which to base the conclusion that a military judge is an “officer of the United States” — a proposition to which both parties agree. But the decisions simply do not speak to the issue of whether, and when, the Appointments Clause may require a second appointment.
The lead and dissenting opinions in the Court of Military Appeals devoted considerable attention to, and the parties before us have extensively briefed, the significance of our opinion in Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U. S. 282 (1893). There Congress had enacted a státute establishing a commission to supervise the development of Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia. Three of the members were appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, but the remaining two members were the Chief of Engineers of the Army and the Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia. Both of the latter were already commissioned as military officers, but it was contended that the Appointments Clause required that they again be appointed to their new positions. The Court rejected the argument, saying:
“[T]he argument is, that while Congress may create an office, it cannot appoint the officer, that the officer can only be appointed by the President with the approval of the Senate. . . . As, however, the two persons whose eligibility is questioned were at the time of the passage of the act... officers of the Únited States who had been theretofore appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, we do not think that, because additional duties, germane to the offices already held by them, were devolved upon them by the act, it was necessary that they should be again appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It cannot be doubted, and it has frequently been the case, that Congress may increase the power and duties of an existing office without thereby rendering it necessary that the incumbent should be again nominated and appointed.” Id., at 300-301.
The present cases before us differ from Shoemaker in several respects, at least one of which is significant for purposes of Appointments Clause analysis. In Shoemaker, Congress assigned new duties to two existing offices, each of which was held by a single officer. This no doubt prompted the Court’s description of the argument as being that “while Congress may create an office, it cannot appoint the officer.” By looking to whether the additional duties assigned to the offices were “germane,” the Court sought to ensure that Congress was not circumventing the Appointments Clause by unilaterally appointing an incumbent to a new and distinct office. But here the statute authorized an indefinite number of military judges, who could be designated from among hundreds or perhaps thousands of qualified commissioned officers. In short, there is no ground for suspicion here that Congress was trying to both create an office and also select a particular individual to fill the office. Ñor has Congress effected a “diffusion of the appointment power,” about which this Court expressed concern in Freytag, supra, at 878.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that the principle of “germaneness” applies to the present situation, we think that principle is satisfied here. By enacting the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1950, and through subsequent statutory changes, Congress has gradually changed the system of military justice so that it has come to more closely resemble the civilian system. But the military in important respects remains a “specialized society separate from civilian society,” Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 743 (1974). Although military judges obviously perform certain unique and important functions, all military officers, consistent with a long tradition, play a role in the operation of the military justice system.
Commissioned officers, for example, have the power and duty to “quell quarrels, frays, and disorders among persons subject to [the UCMJ] and to apprehend persons subject to [the UCMJ] who take part therein.” Art. 7(c), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 807(c). Commanding officers can impose nonjudicial disciplinary punishment for minor offenses, without the intervention of a court-martial, which includes correctional custody, forfeiture of pay, reduction in grade, extra duties, restriction to certain limits, and detention of pay. Art. 15, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 815. A commissioned officer may serve as a summary court-martial or a member of a special or general court-martial. When acting as a summary court-martial or as the president of a special court-martial without a military judge, this officer conducts the proceedings and resolves all issues that would be handled by the military judge, except for challenge for cause against the president of a special court-martial without a military judge. Art. 51, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 851. Convening authorities, finally, have the authority to review and modify the sentence imposed by courts-martial. Art. 60, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §860. Thus, by contrast to civilian society, nonjudicial military officers play a significant part in the administration of military justice.
By the same token, the position of military judge is less distinct from other military positions than the office of full-time civilian judge is from other offices in civilian society. As the lead opinion in the Court of Military Appeals noted, military judges do not have any “inherent judicial authority separate from a court-martial to which they have been detailed. When they act, they do so as a court-martial, not as a military judge. Until detailed to a specific court-martial, they have no more authority than any other military officer of the same grade and rank.” 36 M. J., at 228. Military appellate judges similarly exercise judicial functions only when they are “assigned” to a Court of Military Review. Neither military trial nor appellate judges, moreover, have a fixed term of office. Commissioned officers are assigned or detailed to the position of military judge by a Judge Advocate General for a period of time he deems necessary or appropriate, and then they may be reassigned to perform other duties. Even while serving as military trial judges, officers may perform, with the permission of the Judge Advocate General, duties unrelated to their judicial responsibilities. Art. 26(c), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 826(c). Whatever might be the case in civilian society, we think that the role of military judge is “germane” to that of military officer.
In sum, we believe that the current scheme satisfies the Appointments Clause. It is quite clear that Congress has not required a separate appointment to the position of military judge, and we believe it equally clear that the Appointments Clause by its own force does not require a second appointment before military officers may discharge the duties of such a judge.
II
Petitioners next contend that the Due Process Clause requires that military judges must have a fixed term of office. Petitioners recognize, as they must, that the Constitution does not require life tenure for Article I judges, including military judges. See United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 17 (1955). Nor does the trial by an Article I judge lacking life tenure violate an accused’s due process rights. See Palmore v. United States, 411 U. S. 389, 410 (1973). Petitioners thus confine their argument to the assertion that due process requires military judges to serve for some fixed length of time — however short.
Congress, of course, is subject to the requirements of the Due Process Clause when legislating in the area of military affairs, and that Clause provides some measure of protection to defendants in military proceedings. See Rostker v. Gold berg, 453 U. S. 57, 67 (1981); Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U. S. 25, 43 (1976). But in determining what process is due, courts “must give particular deference to the determination of Congress, made under its authority to regulate the land and naval forces, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8.” Ibid. Petitioners urge that we apply the due process analysis established in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 334-335 (1976). The Government contends that Medina v. California, 505 U. S. 437 (1992), supplies the appropriate analytical framework.
Neither Mathews nor Medina, however, arose in the military context, and we have recognized in past cases that “the tests and limitations [of due process] may differ because of the military context.” Rostker, supra, at 67. The difference arises from the fact that the Constitution contemplates that Congress has “plenary control over rights, duties, and responsibilities in the framework of the Military Establishment, including regulations, procedures, and remedies related to military discipline.” Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296, 301 (1983). Judicial deference thus “is at its apogee” when reviewing congressional decisionmaking in this area. Rostker, supra, at 70. Our deference extends to rules relating to the rights of servicemembers: “Congress has primary responsibility for the delicate task of balancing the rights of servicemen against the needs of the military. . . . [W]e have adhered to this principle of deference in a variety of contexts where, as here, the constitutional rights of servicemen were implicated.” Solorio v. United States, 483 U. S. 435, 447-448 (1987).
We therefore believe that the appropriate standard to apply in these cases is found in Middendorf, supra, where we also faced a due process challenge to a facet of the military justice system. In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires that servicemembers appearing before a summary court-martial be assisted by counsel, we asked “whether the factors militating in favor of counsel at summary courts-martial are so extraordinarily weighty as to overcome the balance struck by Congress.” 425 U. S., at 44. We ask the same question here with respect to fixed terms of office for military judges.
It is elementary that “a fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133,136 (1955). A necessary component of a fair trial is an impartial judge. See ibid.; Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 532 (1927). Petitioners, however, do not allege that the judges in their cases were or appeared to be biased. Instead, they ask us to assume that a military judge who does not have a fixed term of office lacks the independence necessary to ensure impartiality. Neither history nor current practice, however, supports such an assumption.
A
Although a fixed term of office is a traditional component of the Anglo-American civilian judicial system, it has never been a part of the military justice tradition. The early English military tribunals, which served as the model for our own military justice system, were historically convened and presided over by a military general. No tenured military judge presided. See Schlueter, The Court-Martial: An Historical Survey, 87 Mil. L. Rev. 129, 135, 136-144 (1980).
In the United States, although Congress has on numerous occasions during our history revised the procedures governing courts-martial, it has never required tenured judges to preside over courts-martial or to hear immediate appeals therefrom. See W. Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 21-24, 953-1000 (2d ed. 1920) (describing and reprinting the Articles of War, which governed court-martial proceedings during the 17th and 18th centuries); F. Gilligan & F. Lederer, 1 Court-Martial Procedure 11-24 (1991) (describing 20th-century revisions to Articles of War, and enactment of and amendments to UCMJ). Indeed, as already mentioned, Congress did not even create the position of military judge until 1968. Courts-martial thus have been conducted in this country for over 200 years without the presence of a tenured judge, and for over 150 years without the presence of any judge at all.
B
As the Court of Military Appeals observed in Graf 35 M. J., at 462, the historical maintenance of the military justice system without tenured judges “suggests the absence of a fundamental fairness problem.” Petitioners in effect urge us to disregard this history, but we are unwilling to do so. We do not mean to say that any practice in military courts which might have been accepted at some time in history automatically satisfies due process of law today. But as Congress has taken affirmative steps to make the system of military justice more like the American system of civilian justice, it has nonetheless chosen not to give tenure to military judges. The question under the Due Process Clause is whether the existence of such tenure is such an extraordinarily weighty factor as to overcome the balance struck by Congress. And the historical fact that military judges have never had tenure is a factor that must be weighed in this calculation.
A fixed term of office, as petitioners recognize, is not an end in itself. It is a means of promoting judicial independence, which in turn helps to ensure judicial impartiality. We believe the applicable provisions of the UCMJ, and corresponding regulations, by insulating military judges from the effects of command influence, sufficiently preserve judicial impartiality so as to satisfy the Due Process Clause.
Article 26 places military judges under the authority of the appropriate Judge Advocate General rather than under the authority of the convening officer. 10 U. S. C. § 826. Rather than exacerbating the alleged problems relating to judicial independence, as petitioners suggest, we believe this structure helps protect that independence. Like all military officers, Congress made military judges accountable to a superior officer for the performance of their duties. By placing judges under the control of Judge Advocates General, who have no interest in the outcome of a particular court-martial, we believe Congress has achieved an acceptable balance between independence and accountability.
Article 26 also protects against unlawful command influence by precluding a convening authority or any commanding officer from preparing or reviewing any report concerning the effectiveness, fitness, or efficiency of a military judge relating to his judicial duties. Ibid. Article 37 prohibits convening authorities from censuring, reprimanding, or admonishing a military judge “with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court, or with respect to any other exercise of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceeding.” 10 U. S. C. §837. Any officer who “knowingly and intentionally fails to enforce or comply” with Article 37 “shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Art. 98, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §898. The Code also provides that a military judge, either trial or appellate, must refrain from adjudicating a case in which he has previously participated, Arts. 26(c), 66(h), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §§ 826(c), 866(h), and the Code allows the accused to challenge both a court-martial member and a court-martial judge for cause, Art. 41, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §841. The Code also allows the accused to learn the identity of the military judge before choosing whether to be tried by the judge alone, or by the judge and court-martial members. Art. 16, UCMJ, 10 U.S. C. §816.
The entire system, finally, is overseen by the Court of Military Appeals, which is composed entirely of civilian judges who serve for fixed terms of 15 years. That court has demonstrated its vigilance in checking any attempts to exert improper influence over military judges. In United States v. Mabe, 33 M. J. 200 (1991), for example, the court considered whether the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, or his designee, could rate a military judge based on the appropriateness of the judge’s sentences at courts-martial. As the court later described: “We held [in Mabe] that the existence of such a power in these military officers was inconsistent with Congress’ establishment of the military ‘judge’ in Article 26 and its exercise violated Article 37 of the Code.” Graf, 35 M. J., at 465. And in Graf, the court held that it would also violate Articles 26 and 37 if a Judge Advocate General decertified or transferred a military judge based on the General’s opinion of the appropriateness of the judge’s findings and sentences. Ibid
The absence of tenure as a historical matter in the system of military justice, and the number of safeguards in place to ensure impartiality, lead us to reject petitioners’ due process challenge. Petitioners have fallen far short of demonstrating that the factors favoring fixed terms of office are so extraordinarily weighty as to overcome the balance achieved by Congress. See Middendorf 425 U. S., at 44.
For the reasons stated, we reject the petitioners’ Appointments Clause and Due Process Clause attacks on the judges who convicted them and those who heard their appeals. The judgments of the Court of Military Appeals are accordingly
Affirmed.
Court-martial members may be officers or enlisted personnel, depending on the military status of the accused; the members' responsibilities are analogous to, but somewhat greater than, those of civilian jurors. See Art. 25, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §825.
All commissioned officers are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. 10 U. S. C. § 531.
The Judge Advocate General for each service is the principal legal officer for that service. See 10 U. S. C. §3037 (Army), §5148 (Navy-Marine Corps), §8037 (Air Force); Art. 1(1), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §801(1) (Coast Guard).
The constitutionality of the provision allowing civilians to be assigned to Courts of Military Review, without being appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause, obviously presents a quite different question. See Art. 66(a), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 866(a). It is not at issue here.
Although the record before us does not contain complete information regarding the military careers of the judges involved in these cases, it is quite possible that they had been appointed more than once before being detailed or assigned to serve as military judges. This is because 10 U. S. C. § 624 requires a new appointment by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, each time a commissioned officer is promoted to a higher grade — e. g., if a captain is promoted to major, he must receive another appointment.
Congress did create a nine-member commission in 1983 to examine, inter alia, the possibility of providing tenure for military judges. Military Justice Act of 1983, Pub. L. 98-209, §9(b), 97 Stat. 1393, 1404-1405 (1983). The commission published its report a year later, in which it recommended against providing a guaranteed term of office for military trial and appellate judges. See D. Schlueter, Military Criminal Justice: Practice and Procedure 33-34, and nn. 86, 87 (3d ed. 1992) (listing members of commission and describing report).- Congress has taken no further action on the subject.
This added limitation on the power of the Judge Advocates General to remove military judges refutes petitioners’ contention that Judge Advocates General have unfettered discretion both to appoint and remove military judges. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York. | What is the court in which the case originated? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims",
"United States Supreme Court"
] | [
4
] | sc |
ARNOLD et al. v. NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 572.
Argued March 26, 1964.
Decided April 6, 1964.
J. Harvey Turner and Fred W. Harrison argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners.
Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General of North Carolina, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was T. W. Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina.
Per Curiam.
The petitioners, Arnold and Dixon, were found guilty of murder by a jury and their convictions were affirmed, the Supreme Court of North Carolina concluding that they had not made out a case of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand jury which returned the indictment. 258 N. C. 563,129 S. E. 2d 229. In support of their motion to quash the indictment because of consistent exclusion of Negroes from grand jury service, petitioners, both Negroes, offered testimony of the county tax supervisor showing that the tax records of the county, on which Negro and white persons are listed separately and from which the names of jurors are derived, revealed 12,250 white persons and 4,819 Negroes in the county, with 5,583 white men and 2,499 Negro men listed for poll tax. In addition, the clerk of the trial court testified that while there have been as many as four or five Negroes upon the regular jury panel from which grand jurors have been chosen, in his 24 years as clerk he could remember only one Negro serving on a grand jury, another having been selected but excused. This evidence was uncontradicted, the State cross-examining the witnesses but offering no evidence.
The judgment below must be reversed. The “testimony in itself made out a prima jade case of the denial of the equal protection which the Constitution guarantees.” Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 591. The situation here is quite like that in Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U. S. 584, 586, where systematic exclusion of Negroes from grand jury duty was found. In that case:
“Although Negroes comprise about one-third of the population of the parish, the uncontradicted testimony of various witnesses established that only one Negro had been picked for grand jury duty within memory. . . . From 1936, when the Commission first began to include Negroes in the pool of potential jurors, until 1954, when petitioner was indicted, 36 grand juries were selected in the parish. Six or more Negroes were included in each list submitted to the local judges. Yet out of the 432 jurors selected only the single Negro was chosen.”
See also Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S, 475. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence. | What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision? | [
"judicial review (national level)",
"judicial review (state level)",
"Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction",
"statutory construction",
"interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order",
"diversity jurisdiction",
"federal common law"
] | [
1
] | sc |
A. L. MECHLING BARGE LINES, INC., et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 41.
Argued November 8-9, 1961.
Decided December 18, 1961.
Edward B. Hayes argued the cause and filed briefs for appellants.
Daniel M. Friedman argued the cause for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, appel-lees. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Acting Assistant Attorney General Kirkpatrick, Richard A. Solomon, Lionel Kestenbaum, Robert W. Ginnane and H. Neil Garson.
Donald M. Tolmie argued the cause for intervening railroads. With him on the briefs were Edward A, Kaier, Robert H, Bierma, James M. Souby, Jr. and James E. Steffarud.
Mb. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In December 1958 the appellee railroads published and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission tariffs establishing through combination rates, from grain producing areas in Northern Illinois to certain Eastern destinations, which were lower than local or flat rates for the same commodities from Chicago to the same destinations. Since these tariffs would be in violation of the long- and short-haul provisions of §4(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act, the railroads simultaneously applied for the administrative relief which is authorized by the first proviso to § 4 (1). Timely protests were filed by the appellant barge lines, alleging that the proposed railroad rates threatened the extinction of legitimate competition by water carriers for the traffic from the producing areas into Chicago. On January 9, 1969, Division 2 of the Commission entered Fourth Section Order No. 19059, authorizing the proposed railroad rates — although expressly withholding approval of them — pending further Commission action. The Order was entered before any hearing had been held or investigation completed, and the Division did not set out any findings. On the same day, Division 2 ordered that an investigation be instituted with respect to the lawfulness of the rates.
Pending final Commission determination as to whether permanent Fourth Section relief was warranted, and after Order 19059 had been in effect for 10 months, the appellant barge lines filed the action of which review is presently sought, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The complaint was based in part on the statutory procedure for review of Interstate Commerce Commission orders, and it prayed the court to set aside Order 19059 on the ground that the Commission lacked power to grant Fourth Section relief as to protested tariffs without first completing a full investigation, holding an adversary hearing, and making explicit findings that the statutory criteria for the granting of such relief had been met. The complaint also sought relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act and under the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act; the complaint alleged that the challenged administrative practice was a continuing one, and prayed for a declaration that that practice was beyond the powers of the Commission.
Pending the determination of the action, the railroads eliminated the long-haul short-haul discrimination from their rates and notified the Commission by letter of their withdrawal of the Fourth Section application respecting which Order 19059 had granted temporary relief. Having intervened as defendants in the pending lawsuit, the railroads, together with the Commission, then moved for dismissal of the action on the grounds, first, that as to the prayer for annulment of Order 19059 the withdrawal of the Fourth Section application had rendered the cause moot; and, second, that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to grant a declaratory judgment. The District Court granted the motions to dismiss. 188 F. Supp. 386. The barge lines then perfected this appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and we postponed decision as to our jurisdiction until hearing on the merits. 365 U. S. 865.
We are, of course, in any event empowered and obliged to determine the jurisdictional questions in deciding whether the District Court correctly dismissed the case. And that is necessarily our initial inquiry on this appeal. Appellants do not deny that Order 19059 is presently devoid of practical effect, inasmuch as the Fourth Section application to which it relates has been withdrawn. Still, they insist that the case is neither moot nor inappropriate for the granting of declaratory relief.
First, appellants assert in their brief that they “have a continuing interest in having F. S. 0. 19059 vacated since it would be a defense to any action by appellants against the railroads for damages suffered from the railroads' fourth section departure rates.” Appellants point, in this connection, to certain of our decisions which suggest to them that they will be precluded from attacking Order 19059 collaterally and that the order must be set aside, if at all, by statutory direct review.
In United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, this Court expressed the view that a party should not be concluded in subsequent litigation by a District Court’s resolution of issues, when appellate review of the judgment incorporating that resolution, otherwise available as of right, fails because of intervening mootness. We there held that that principle should be implemented by the reviewing court’s vacating the unreviewed judgment below. We think the principle enunciated in Munsing-wear at least equally applicable to unreviewed administrative orders, and we adopt its procedure here. The District Court should have vacated the order which it declined to review. Since our disposition rests solely on the mootness occasioned by the railroads’ elimination of the long-haul short-haul discrimination, it is not to be taken as foreclosing determination, on any appropriate future occasion, as to (a) whether the Commission was empowered to enter Order 19059 utilizing the procedures it did; (b) whether Order 19059 was effective to authorize the Fourth Section departures to which it related; or (c) whether the pendency of Order 19059 establishes a defense for the railroads if the appellants carry out their intention expressed to us to predicate a damage suit against the railroads on the alleged violation of the statute. Of course, we here intimate no view as to whether there may exist a cause of action for damages in favor of a competing carrier predicated on a Fourth Section departure.
Second, appellants assert in their brief that since “the . . . practice of the Commission in granting ‘temporary’ authority for Fourth Section departures to the Railroads over the protests of the appellants and without any hearing or findings in the order granting such authority” is a “continuing” one, there is presently an actual controversy within the jurisdiction of the Court to resolve by declaratory judgment.
We think it significant on this aspect of the case that the Commission has, on this appeal, conceded that it is obliged to make findings and that the challenged order is fatally defective because no supporting findings were made. The Commission further represents that it has amended its practice accordingly. It thus appears that one of the “continuing” practices whose validity appellants would have us adjudicate continues no longer. Nor would it be appropriate to decide at this juncture whether the Commission is required to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to granting “temporary Fourth Section relief.” Despite the Commission’s present insistence that it is not so required, experience with its newly adopted practice of making findings in respect of all protested Fourth Section Orders may lead the Commission to provide for a hearing — at least under some circumstances.
Declaratory judgment is a remedy committed to judicial discretion. Nor need this Court first have the view of a lower court before it may decide that such discretion ought not be exercised. Public Service Comm’n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U. S. 237. We think that sound discretion withholds the remedy where it appears that a challenged “continuing practice” is, at the moment adjudication is sought, undergoing significant modification so that its ultimate form cannot be confidently predicted. We do not, therefore, reach the possibly difficult questions whether appellants’ challenge to the Commission’s “continuing practice” gives rise to an actual controversy, or whether the District Court was on these pleadings otherwise possessed of jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment.
The order of the District Court dismissing the complaint is modified to provide that the proceedings are remanded to the Interstate Commerce Commission with direction to vacate and set aside Order 19059.
It is so ordered.
24 Stat. 380, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 4 (1):
“It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to this chapter or chapter 12 of this title to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers, or of like kind of property, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line or route in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance
“Provided, That upon application to the Commission and after investigation, such carrier, in special cases, may be authorized by the Commission to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property, and the Commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated carriers may be relieved from the operation of the foregoing provisions of this section, but in exercising the authority conferred upon it in this proviso, the Commission shall not permit the establishment of any charge to or from the more distant point that is not reasonably compensatory for the service performed; and no such authorization shall be granted on account of merely potential water competition not actually in existence . . . .”
Fourth Section Order No. 19059, Jan. 9, 1959, Grain and Grain Products from Illinois to the East.
Docket No. 32790, Jan. 9, 1959, Corn, Oats, Soybeans — Illinois to the East.
Jurisdiction to enjoin and set aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission is conferred on the District Courts by 28 U. S. C. § 1336. Section 1398 locates venue in the district of the plaintiff’s residence or principal office. Section 2322 makes the United States a nominal defendant, § 2323 authorizes the intervention of the Commission or of any interested party, and § 2325 requires such actions to be heard and determined by a three-judge court.
The complaint alleged that the statutory requirement that the rate for the longer haul be “reasonably compensatory” had, by authoritative administrative gloss, been imbued with four distinct criteria, namely, that a rate so described must
“(1) cover and more- than cover the extra or additional expenses incurred in handling the traffic to which it applies; (2) be no lower than necessary to meet existing competition; (3) not be so low as to threaten the extinction of legitimate competition by water carriers; and (4) not impose an undue burden on other traffic or jeopardize the appropriate return on the value of carrier property generally, as contemplated in section 15a of the act.”
28 U. S. C. §§ 2201, 2202.
60 Stat. 243, 5 U. S. C. § 1009.
As to lack of jurisdiction to grant a declaratory judgment it was argued not only that there was no “actual controversy” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 2201, but also that the statutory provisions set forth in note 5, supra, which incorporate no provision for declaratory relief, provide the exclusive mode of judicial review of Interstate Commerce Commission orders.
Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 258 U. S. 377 (shipper’s action to compel allotment of cars in contravention of I. C. C. rules must be brought in federal court pursuant to statutory review procedure); Venner v. Michigan Central R. Co., 271 U. S. 127 (stockholder’s suit to enjoin railroad from acquiring equipment as authorized by I. C. C. order must be brought in federal court pursuant to statutory review procedure); Callanan Road Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 507 (authority of I. C. C. to amend certificate cannot be raised collaterally in proceeding to interpret amended certificate).
Such has been the long-standing practice of this Court in civil cases. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39-40, n. 2; Cozart v. Wilson, 352 U. S. 884. In Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 355 U. S. 179, this Court, having been apprised that the temporary Fourth Section relief order there under attack had been superseded and mooted by a subsequent Commission qrder, vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint — thus' leaving the challenged administrative order unannulled. We do not consider that case to have established any precedent demanding our adherence here, since all the parties there joined in representing to the Court that the challenged order “is now only of academic interest.” Memorandum Suggesting That the Cause is Moot, p. 3.
In their letter informing the Commission of the withdrawal of their Fourth Section application, the railroads expressed their understanding that “the temporary Fourth Section Orders issued in response to this Application will be cancelled and the authority discontinued.”
Appellants state that on several previous occasions judicial review of the practice which they challenge has failed because of intervening mootness occasioned either by the withdrawal of applications, citing Coastwise Line v. United States, 157 F. Supp. 305; American Commercial Barge Line Co. v. United States, Civ. No. 11772 (S. D. Tex. 1959), or by superseding Commission orders, citing Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 355 U. S. 179.
See note 9, supra. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York. | What is the court in which the case originated? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims",
"United States Supreme Court"
] | [
76
] | sc |
COLLINS v. CITY OF HARKER HEIGHTS, TEXAS
No. 90-1279.
Argued November 5, 1991
Decided February 26, 1992
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Sanford Jay Rosen argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Don Busby and Andrea G. Asaro.
Lucas A. Powe, Jr., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Roy L. Barrett and Stuart Smith.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Edward Tuddenham, J. Patrick Wiseman, Steven R. Shapiro, John A. Powell, and Helen Hershkoff; for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America by Jeffrey L. Needle; and for the National Education Association by Robert H. Chanin and Jeremiah A. Collins.
Richard Ruda, Carter G. Phillips, and Mark D. Hopson filed a brief for the National League of Cities et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1988, provides a remedy for a municipal employee who is fatally injured in the course of his employment because the city customarily failed to train or warn its employees about known hazards in the workplace. Even though the city’s conduct may be actionable under state law, we hold that §1983 does not apply because such conduct does not violate the Due Process Clause.
On October 21, 1988, Larry Michael Collins, an employee in the sanitation department of the city of Harker Heights, Texas, died of asphyxia after entering a manhole to unstop a sewer line. Petitioner, his widow, brought this action alleging that Collins “had a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable risks of harm to his body, mind and emotions and a constitutional right to be protected from the City of Harker Heights’ custom and policy of deliberate indifference toward the safety of its employees.” App. 7. Her complaint alleged that the city violated that right by following a custom and policy of not training its employees about the dangers of working in sewer lines and manholes, not providing safety equipment at jobsites, and not providing safety warnings. The complaint also alleged that a prior incident had given the city notice of the risks of entering the sewer lines and that the city had systematically and intentionally failed to provide the equipment and training required by a Texas statute. Ibid. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that a constitutional violation had not been alleged. No. W-89-CA-168 (WD Tex., Oct. 30, 1988), App. 20. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed on a different theory. 916 F. 2d 284 (1990). It did not reach the question whether the city had violated Collins’ constitutional rights because it denied recovery on the ground that there had been no “abuse of governmental power,” which the Fifth Circuit had found to be a necessary element of a § 1983 action. Id., at 287-288, and n. 3.
The contrary decision in Ruge v. Bellevue, 892 F. 2d 738 (CA8 1989), together with our concern about the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the statute, prompted our grant of certiorari, 499 U. S. 958 (1991).
W — I
Our cases do not support the Court of Appeals reading of § 1983 as requiring proof of an abuse of governmental power separate and apart from the proof of a constitutional violation. Although the statute provides the citizen with an effective remedy against those abuses of state power that violate federal law, it does not provide a remedy for abuses that do not violate federal law, see, e. g., Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277 (1980); DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U. S. 189 (1989). More importantly, the statute does not draw any distinction between abusive and nonabusive federal violations.
The Court of Appeals’ analysis rests largely on the fact that the city had, through allegedly tortious conduct, harmed one of its employees rather than an ordinary citizen over whom it exercised governmental power. The employment relationship, however, is not of controlling significance. On the one hand, if the city had pursued a policy of equally deliberate indifference to the safety of pedestrians that resulted in a fatal injury to one who inadvertently stepped into an open manhole, the Court of Appeals’ holding would not speak to this situation at all, although it would seem that a claim by such a pedestrian should be analyzed in a similar manner as the claim by this petitioner. On the other hand, a logical application of the holding might also bar potentially meritorious claims by employees if, for example, the city had given an employee a particularly dangerous assignment in retaliation for a political speech, cf. St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U. S. 112 (1988), or because of his or her gender, cf. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978). The First Amendment, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Federal Constitution afford protection to employees who serve the government as well as to those who are served by them, and § 1983 provides a cause of action for all citizens injured by an abridgment of those protections. Neither the fact that petitioner’s decedent was a government employee nor the characterization of the city’s deliberate indifference to his safety as something other than an “abuse of governmental power” is a sufficient reason for refusing to entertain petitioner’s federal claim under § 1983.
Nevertheless, proper analysis requires us to separate two different issues when a § 1983 claim is asserted against a municipality: (1) whether plaintiff’s harm was caused by a constitutional violation, and (2) if so, whether the city is responsible for that violation. See Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 808, 817 (1985) (opinion of Rehnquist, J.); id., at 828-829 (opinion of Brennan, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Because most of our opinions discussing municipal policy have involved the latter issue, it is appropriate to discuss it before considering the question whether petitioner’s complaint has alleged a constitutional violation.
II
Section 1983 provides a remedy against “any person” who, under color of state law, deprives another of rights protected by the Constitution. In Monell, the Court held that Congress intended municipalities and other local government entities to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. 436 U. S., at 690. At the same time, the Court made it clear that municipalities may not be held liable “unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.” Id., at 691. The Court emphasized that
“a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor — or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.
“[TJherefore, ... a local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Id., at 691, 694 (emphasis in original).
In a series of later cases, the Court has considered whether an alleged injury caused by municipal employees acting under color of state law provided a proper basis for imposing liability on a city. In each of those cases the Court assumed that a constitutional violation had been adequately alleged or proved and focused its attention on the separate issue of municipal liability. Thus, for example, in Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, supra, it was assumed that a police officer had violated the decedent’s constitutional rights, but we held that the wrongful conduct of a single officer without any policy-making authority did not establish municipal policy. And in St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U. S. 112 (1988), without reaching the question whether the adverse employment action taken against the plaintiff violated his First Amendment rights, the Court concluded that decisions by subordinate employees did not necessarily reflect official policy. On the other hand, in Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U. S. 469 (1986), the Court held that a county was responsible for unconstitutional actions taken pursuant to decisions made by the county prosecutor and the county sheriff because they were the “officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question,” id., at 483-484.
Our purpose in citing these cases is to emphasize the separate character of the inquiry into the question of municipal responsibility and the question whether a constitutional violation occurred. It was necessary to analyze whether execution of a municipal policy inflicted the injury in these cases because, unlike ordinary tort litigation, the doctrine of re-spondeat superior was inapplicable. The city is not vicariously liable under §1983 for the constitutional torts of its agents: It is only liable when it can be fairly said that the city itself is the wrongdoer. Because petitioner in this case relies so heavily on our reasoning in Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378 (1989) — and in doing so, seems to assume that the case dealt with the constitutional issue — it is appropriate to comment specifically on that case.
In Canton we held that a municipality can, in some circumstances, be held liable under §1983 “for constitutional violations resulting from its failure to train municipal employees.” Id., at 380. Among the claims advanced by the plaintiff in that case was a violation of the “right, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to receive necessary medical attention while in police custody.” Id., at 381. Because we assumed, arguendo, that the plaintiff’s constitutional right to receive medical care had been denied, id., at 388-389, n. 8, our. opinion addressed only the question whether the constitutional deprivation was attributable to a municipal policy or custom.
We began our analysis by plainly indicating that we were not deciding the constitutional issue.
“In Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978), we decided that a municipality can be found liable under § 1983 only where the municipality itself causes the constitutional violation at issue. Re-spondeat superior or vicarious liability will not attach under §1983. Id., at 694-695. ‘It is only when the “execution of the government’s policy or custom ... inflicts the injury” that the municipality may be held liable under § 1983.’ Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U. S. 257, 267 (1987) (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (quoting Monell, supra, at 694).
“Thus, our first inquiry in any case alleging municipal liability under § 1983 is the question whether there is a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Id., at 385.
We did not suggest that all harm-causing municipal policies are actionable under § 1983 or that all such policies are unconstitutional. Moreover, we rejected the city’s argument that only unconstitutional policies can create municipal liability under the statute. Id., at 387. Instead, we concluded that if a city employee violates another’s constitutional rights, the city may be liable if it had a policy or custom of failing to train its employees and that failure to train caused the constitutional violation. In particular, we held that the inadequate training of police officers could be characterized as the cause of the constitutional tort if — and only if — the failure to train amounted to “deliberate indifference” to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact. Id., at 388.
Although the term “deliberate indifference” has been used in other contexts to define the threshold for finding a violation of the Eighth Amendment, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 104 (1976), as we have explained, that term was used in the Canton case for the quite different purpose of identifying the threshold for holding a city responsible for the constitutional torts committed by its inadequately trained agents. In this case, petitioner has used that term to characterize the city’s failure to train the employees in its sanitation department. We assume for the purpose of decision that the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to provide a substitute for the doctrine of respondeat superior as a basis for imposing liability on the city for the tor-tious conduct of its agents, but that assumption does not confront the question whether the complaint has alleged a constitutional violation. To that question we now turn.
III
Petitioner’s constitutional claim rests entirely on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The most familiar office of that Clause is to provide a guarantee of fair procedure in connection with any deprivation of life, liberty, or property by a State. Petitioner, however, does not advance a procedural due process claim in this case. Instead, she relies on the substantive component of the Clause that protects individual liberty against “certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S. 327, 331 (1986).
As a general matter, the Court has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchar-tered area are scarce and open-ended. Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U. S. 214, 225-226 (1985). The doctrine of judicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field. It is important, therefore, to focus on the allegations in the complaint to determine how petitioner describes the constitutional right at stake and what the city allegedly did to deprive her husband of that right.
A fair reading of petitioner’s complaint does not charge the city with a willful violation of Collins’ rights. Petitioner does not claim that the city or any of its agents deliberately harmed her husband. In fact, she does not even allege that his supervisor instructed him to go into the sewer when the supervisor knew or should have known that there was a significant risk that he would be injured. Instead, she makes the more general allegation that the city deprived him of life and liberty by failing to provide a reasonably safe work environment. Fairly analyzed, her claim advances two theories: that the Federal Constitution imposes a duty on the city to provide its employees with minimal levels of safety and security in the workplace, or that the city’s “deliberate indifference” to Collins’ safety was arbitrary government action that must “shock the conscience” of federal judges. Cf. Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 172 (1952).
Neither the text nor the history of the Due Process Clause supports petitioner’s claim that the governmental employer’s duty to provide its employees with a safe working environment is a substantive component of the Due Process Clause. “[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prevent government ‘from abusing [its] power, or employing it as an instrument of oppression. ’ ” DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U. S., at 196 (quoting Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U. S. 344, 348 (1986)). As we recognized in DeShaney:
“The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without ‘due process of law,’ but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Nor does history support such an expansive reading of the constitutional text.” 489 U. S., at 195.
Petitioner’s submission that the city violated a federal constitutional obligation to provide its employees with certain minimal levels of safety and security is unprecedented. It is quite different from the constitutional claim advanced by plaintiffs in several of our prior cases who argued that the State owes a duty to take care of those who have already been deprived of their liberty. We have held, for example, that apart from the protection against cruel and unusual punishment provided by the Eighth Amendment, cf. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678 (1978), the Due Process Clause of its own force requires that conditions of confinement satisfy certain minimal standards for pretrial detainees, see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 535, n. 16, 545 (1979), for persons in mental institutions, Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307, 315-316 (1982), for convicted felons, Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 94-99 (1987), and for persons under arrest, see Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U. S. 239, 244-245 (1983). The “process” that the Constitution guarantees in connection with any deprivation of liberty thus includes a continuing obligation to satisfy certain minimal custodial standards. See DeShaney, 489 U. S., at 200. Petitioner cannot maintain, however, that the city deprived Collins of his liberty when it made, and he voluntarily accepted, an offer of employment.
We also are not persuaded that the city’s alleged failure to train its employees, or to warn them about known risks of harm, was an omission that can properly be characterized as arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense. Petitioner’s claim is analogous to a fairly typical state-law tort claim: The city breached its duty of care to her husband by failing to provide a safe work environment. Because the Due Process Clause “does not purport to supplant traditional tort law in laying down rules of conduct to regulate liability for injuries that attend living together in society,” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S., at 332, we have previously rejected claims that the Due Process Clause should be interpreted to impose federal duties that are analogous to those traditionally imposed by state tort law, see, e.g., id., at 332-333; Baker v. McCollan, 443 U. S. 137, 146 (1979); Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 701 (1976). The reasoning in those cases applies with special force to claims asserted against public employers because state law, rather than the Federal Constitution, generally governs the substance of the employment relationship. See, e. g., Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 350 (1976); Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577-578 (1972).
Our refusal to characterize the city’s alleged omission in this case as arbitrary in a constitutional sense rests on the presumption that the administration of government programs is based on a rational decisionmaking process that takes account of competing social, political, and economic forces. Cf. Walker v. Rowe, 791 F. 2d 507, 510 (CA7 1986). Decisions concerning the allocation of resources to individual programs, such as sewer maintenance, and to particular aspects of those programs, such as the training and compensation of employees, involve a host of policy choices that must be made by locally elected representatives, rather than by federal judges interpreting the basic charter of Government for the entire country. The Due Process Clause “is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions.” Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S., at 350. Nor does it guarantee municipal employees a workplace that is free of unreasonable risks of harm.
Finally, we reject petitioner’s suggestion that the Texas Hazard Communication Act supports her substantive due process claim. We assume that the Act imposed a duty on the city to warn its sanitation employees about the dangers of noxious gases in the sewers and to provide safety training and protective equipment to minimize those dangers. We also assume, as petitioner argues, that the Act created an entitlement that qualifies as a “liberty interest” protected by the Due Process Clause. But even with these assumptions, petitioner’s claim must fail for she has not alleged that the deprivation of this liberty interest was arbitrary in the constitutional sense. Cf. Harrah Independent School Dist. v. Martin, 440 U. S. 194, 198-199 (1979). The reasons why the city’s alleged failure to train and warn did not constitute a constitutionally arbitrary deprivation of Collins’ life, see supra, at 128-129, apply a fortiori to the less significant liberty interest created by the Texas statute.
In sum, we conclude that the Due Process Clause does not impose an independent federal obligation upon municipalities to provide certain minimal levels of safety and security in the workplace and the city’s alleged failure to train or to warn its sanitation department employees was not arbitrary in a constitutional sense. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.
It is so ordered.
In particular, the complaint alleged that “[pjrior to October, 1988, the City of Harker Heights was on notice of the dangers to which the employees were exposed because Larry Michael Collins’ supervisor had been rendered unconscious in a manhole several months prior to October, 1988, in fact, several months before Larry Michael Collins began work at the City of Harker Heights.” App. 7.
The Court of Appeals explained:
“The question presented in this case is whether a plaintiff seeking recovery under § 1983 for injury to a governmental employee must demonstrate, inter alia, that the conduct in issue was an abuse of governmental power. More particularly, does alleged wrongful conduct by government — in its capacity as employer rather than as a governing authority— that deprives its employee of an alleged constitutional right give rise to a § 1983 action? We base our holding on the abuse of government power standard, separate from the constitutional deprivation element or standard. The district court appears to have merged those two standards, which are among those necessary for bringing § 1983 into play here. In reviewing this Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we will keep them separate.
“In this Circuit, there is a separate standard that must also be satisfied— an abuse of government power. While this element is in many ways similar to, and often blends with, other necessary elements for a § 1983 action, such as deprivation of a constitutional right, and springs from the same sources as the deprivation element, it is separate nonetheless.” 916 F. 2d, at 286-287.
The section states, in relevant part:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress_” 42 U. S. C. § 1983.
Petitioners in Monell, a class of female employees of the New York City Department of Social Services and Board of Education, alleged that the board and department violated their due process rights by implementing an official policy that compelled pregnant employees to take unpaid leaves of absences before such leaves were required for medical reasons. 436 U. S., at 660-661.
“At the close of the evidence, the District Court submitted the case to the jury, which rejected all of Mrs. Harris’ claims except one: her § 1983 claim against the city resulting from its failure to provide her with medi cal treatment while in custody.” Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S., at 382 (emphasis added).
We added:
“Only where a municipality’s failure to train its employees in a relevant respect evidences a ‘deliberate indifference’ to the rights of its inhabitants can such a shortcoming be properly thought of as a' city ‘policy or custom’ that is actionable under § 1983.
“Consequently, while claims such as respondent’s — alleging that the city’s failure to provide training to municipal employees resulted in the constitutional deprivation she suffered — are cognizable under § 1983, they can only yield liability against a municipality where that city’s failure to train reflects deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its inhabitants.” Id., at 389, 392.
Indeed, we expressly stated: “The ‘deliberate indifference’ standard we adopt for § 1983 ‘failure to train’ claims does not turn upon the degree of fault (if any) that a plaintiff must show to make out an underlying claim of a constitutional violation.” Id., at 388, n. 8.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Petitioner alleges that her husband had “a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable risks of harm to his body, mind and emotions and a constitutional right to be protected from the City of Harker Heights’ custom and policy of deliberate indifference toward the safety of its employees.” App. 7. The city’s policy and custom of not training its employees and not warning them of the danger allegedly caused Collins’ death and thus deprived him of those rights. Id., at 8.
“Historically, this guarantee of due process has been applied to deliberate decisions of government officials to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. E. g., Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97 (1878) (assessment of real estate); Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 166 (1962) (stomach pumping); Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535 (1971) (suspension of driver’s license); Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651 (1977) (paddling student); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517 (1984) (intentional destruction of inmate’s property). No decision of this Court before Parratt [v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 (1981),] supported the view that negligent conduct by a state official, even though causing injury, constitutes a deprivation under the Due Process Clause. This history reflects the traditional and common-sense notion that the Due Process Clause, like its forebear in the Magna Carta, see Corwin, The Doctrine of Due Process of Law Before the Civil War, 24 Harv. L. Rev. 366, 368 (1911), was ‘intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government,’ Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 527 (1884).” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S. 327, 331 (1986).
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 5182b (Vernon 1987).
Section 10(a) of the Act states, for example:
“Every employer shall provide, at least annually, an education and training program for employees using or handling hazardous chemicals. . . . Additional instruction shall be provided when the potential for exposure to hazardous chemicals is altered or when new and significant information is received by the employer concerning the hazards of a chemical. New or newly assigned employees shall be provided training before working with or in a work area containing hazardous chemicals.”
And § 15(a)states:
“Employees who may be exposed to hazardous chemicals shall be informed of the exposure and shall have access to the workplace chemical list and [material safety data sheets] for the hazardous chemicals. ... In addition, employees shall receive training on the hazards of the chemicals and on measures they can take to protect themselves from those hazards and shall be provided with appropriate personal protective equipment. These rights are guaranteed on the effective date of this Act.” | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded. | What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"modify",
"remand",
"unusual disposition"
] | [
1
] | sc |
RAYTHEON CO. v. HERNANDEZ
No. 02-749.
Argued October 8, 2003
Decided December 2, 2003
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Souter, J.,.who took no part in the decision of the case, and Breyer, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Alan Charles Raul, Paul Grossman, Paul W. Cane, Jr., Neal D. Mollen, Jay B. Stephens, and Ronald Stolkin.
Deputy Solicitor General Clement argued the cause for the United States as amicus curia# urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Boyd, John P. Elwood, David K. Flynn, and Sarah E. Harrington.
Stephen G. Montoya argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Ann Elizabeth Reesman, Stephen A. Bokat, Robin S. Conrad, and Ellen D. Bryant filed a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Betty Ford Center et al. by David T Goldberg and Daniel N. Abrahamson; and for the National Employment Lawyers Association et al. by Claudia Center, Brian East, Terisa E. Chaw, and Arlene Mayerson.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 327, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 12101 et seq., makes it unlawful for an employer, with respect to hiring, to “discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual.” § 12112(a). We are asked to decide in this case whether the ADA confers preferential rehire rights on disabled employees lawfully terminated for violating workplace conduct rules. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an employer’s unwritten policy not to rehire employees who left the company for violating personal conduct rules contravenes the ADA, at least as applied to employees who were lawfully forced to resign for illegal drug use but have since been rehabilitated. Because the Ninth Circuit improperly applied a disparate-impact analysis in a disparate-treatment case in order to reach this holding, we vacate its judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not, however, reach the question on which we granted certiorari. 537 U. S. 1187 (2003).
J — I
Respondent, Joel Hernandez, worked for Hughes Missile Systems for 25 years. On July 11, 1991, respondent’s appearance and behavior at work suggested that he might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Pursuant to company policy, respondent took a drug test, which came back positive for cocaine. Respondent subsequently admitted that he had been up late drinking beer and using cocaine the night before the test. Because respondent’s behavior violated petitioner’s workplace conduct rules, respondent was forced to resign. Respondent’s “Employee Separation Summary” indicated as the reason for separation: “discharge for personal conduct (quit in lieu of discharge).” App. 12a.
More than two years later, on January 24,1994, respondent applied to be rehired by petitioner. Respondent stated on his application that he had previously been employed by petitioner. He also attached two reference letters to the application, one from his pastor, stating that respondent was a “faithful and active member” of the church, and the other from an Alcoholics Anonymous counselor, stating that respondent attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings regularly and is in recovery. Id., at 13a~15a.
Joanne Bockmiller, an employee in the company’s Labor Relations Department, reviewed respondent’s application. Bockmiller testified in her deposition that since respondent’s application disclosed his prior employment with the company, she pulled his personnel file and reviewed his employee separation summary. She then rejected respondent’s application. Bockmiller insisted that the company had a policy against rehiring employees who were terminated for workplace misconduct. Id., at 62a. Thus, when she reviewed the employment separation summary and found that respondent had been discharged for violating workplace conduct rules, she rejected respondent’s application. She testified, in particular, that she did not know that respondent was a former drug addict when she made the employment decision and did not see anything that would constitute a “record of” addiction. Id., at 63a-64a.
Respondent subsequently filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Respondent’s charge of discrimination indicated that petitioner did not give him a reason for his nonselection, but that respondent believed he had been discriminated against in violation of the ADA.
Petitioner responded to the charge by submitting a letter to the EEOC, in which George M. Medina, Sr., Manager of Diversity Development, wrote:
“The ADA specifically exempts from protection individuals currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs when the covered entity acts on the basis of that use. • Contrary' to Complainant’s unfounded allegation, his non-selection for rehire is not based on any legitimate disability. Rather, Complainant’s application was rejected based on his demonstrated drug use while previously employed and the complete lack of evidence indicating successful drug rehabilitation.
“The Company maintains it’s [sic] right to deny reemployment to employees terminated for violation of Company rules and regulations. . . . Complainant has provided no evidence to alter the Company’s position that Complainant’s conduct while employed by [petitioner] makes him ineligible for rehire.” Id., at 19a-20a.
This response, together with evidence that the letters submitted with respondent’s employment application may have alerted Bockmiller to the reason for respondent’s prior termination, led the EEOC to conclude that petitioner may have “rejected [respondent’s] application based on his record of past alcohol and drug use.” Id., at 94a (EEOC Determination Letter, Nov. 20, 1997). The EEOC thus found that there was “reasonable cause to believe that [respondent] was denied hire to the position of Product Test Specialist because of his disability.” Id., at 95a. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter, and respondent subsequently filed this action alleging a violation of the ADA.
Respondent proceeded through discovery on the theory that the company rejected his application because of his record of drug addiction and/or because he was regarded as being a drug addict. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 12102(2)(B)-(C). In response to petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, respondent for the first time argued in the alternative that if the company really did apply a neutral no-rehire policy in his case, petitioner still violated the ADA because such a policy has a disparate impact. The District Court granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment with respect to respondent’s disparate-treatment claim. However, the District Court refused to consider respondent’s disparate-impact claim because respondent had failed to plead or raise the theory in a timely manner.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that respondent had failed timely to raise his disparate-impact claim. Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Systems Co., 298 F. 3d 1030, 1037, n. 20 (CA9 2002). In addressing respondent’s disparate-treatment claim, the Court of Appeals proceeded under the familiar burden-shifting approach first adopted by this Court in McDonnell Douglas Cory. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973). First, the Ninth Circuit found that with respect to respondent’s prima facie case of discrimination, there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether respondent was qualified for the position for which he sought to be rehired, and whether the reason for petitioner’s refusal to rehire him was his past record of drug addiction. 298 F. 3d, at 1034-1035. The Court of Appeals thus held that with respect to respondent’s prima facie case of discrimination, respondent had proffered sufficient evidence to preclude a grant of summary judgment. Id.,' at 1035. Because petitioner does not challenge this aspect of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, we do not address it here.
The Court of Appeals then moved to the next step of McDonnell Douglas, where the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action. 411 U. S., at 802. Here, petitioner contends that Bockmiller applied the neutral policy against rehiring employees previously terminated for violating workplace conduct rules and that this neutral company policy constituted a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for its decision not to rehire respondent. The Court of Appeals, although admitting that petitioner’s no-rehire rule was lawful on its face, held the policy to be unlawful “as applied to former drug addicts whose only work-related offense was testing positive because of their addiction.” 298 F. 3d, at 1036. The Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner’s application of a neutral no-rehire policy was not a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting respondent’s application:
“Maintaining a blanket policy against rehire of all former employees who violated company policy not only screens out persons with a record of addiction who have been successfully rehabilitated, but may well result, as [petitioner] contends it did here, in the staff member who makes the employment decision remaining unaware of the ‘disability and thus of the fact that she is committing an unlawful act. . . . Additionally, we hold that a policy that serves to bar the reemployment of a drug addict despite his successful rehabilitation violates the ADA.” Id., at 1036-1037.
In other words, while ostensibly evaluating whether petitioner had proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for failing to rehire respondent sufficient to rebut respondent’s prima facie showing of disparate treatment, the Court of Appeals held that a neutral no-rehire policy could never suffice in a case where the employee was terminated for illegal drug use, because such a policy has a disparate impact on recovering drug addicts. In so holding, the Court of Appeals erred by conflating the analytical framework for disparate-impact and disparate-treatment claims. Had the Court of Appeals correctly applied the disparate-treatment framework, it would have been obliged to conclude that a neutral no-rehire policy is, by definition, a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason under the ADA. And thus the only remaining question would be whether respondent could produce sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that “petitioner’s stated reason for respondent’s rejection was in fact pretext.” McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 804.
II.
This Court has consistently recognized a distinction between claims of discrimination based on disparate treatment and claims of discrimination based on disparate impact. The Court has said that “ ‘[djisparate treatment’ ... is the most easily understood type of discrimination. The employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or [other protected characteristic].” Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 335, n. 15 (1977). See also Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U. S. 604, 609 (1993) (discussing disparate-treatment claims in the context of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967). Liability in a disparate-treatment case “depends on whether the protected trait . . . actually motivated the employer’s decision.” Id., at 610. By contrast, disparate-impact claims “involve employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.” Teamsters, supra, at 335-336, n. 15. Under a disparate-impact theory of discrimination, “a facially neutral employment practice may be deemed [illegally discriminatory] without evidence of the employer’s subjective intent to discriminate that is required in a ‘disparate-treatment’ case.” Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U. S. 642, 645-646 (1989), superseded by statute on other grounds, Civil Rights Act of 1991, § 105, 105 Stat. 1074-1075, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(k) (1994 ed.).
Both disparate-treatment and disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the ADA. See 42 U. S. C. § 12112(b) (defining “discriminate” to include “utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration . . . that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability” and “using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability”). Because “the factual issues, and therefore the character of the evidence presented, differ when the plaintiff claims that a facially neutral employment policy has a discriminatory impact on protected classes,” Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 252, n. 5 (1981), courts must be careful to distinguish between these theories. Here, respondent did not timely pursue a disparate-impact claim. Rather, the District Court concluded, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that respondent’s case was limited to a disparate-treatment theory, that the company refused to rehire respondent because it regarded respondent as being disabled and/or because of respondent’s record of a disability. 298 F, 3d, at 1037, n. 20.
Petitioner’s proffer of its neutral no-rehire policy plainly satisfied its obligation under McDonnell Douglas to provide a legitimate, nondiseriminatory reason for refusing to rehire respondent. Thus, the only relevant question before the Court of Appeals, after petitioner presented a neutral explanation for its decision not to rehire respondent, was whether there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that petitioner did make its employment decision based on respondent’s status as disabled despite petitioner’s proffered explanation. Instead, the Court of Appeals concluded that, as a matter of law, a neutral no-rehire policy was not a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason sufficient to defeat a prima facie case of discrimination. The Court of Appeals did not even attempt, in the remainder of its opinion, to treat this claim as one involving only disparate treatment. Instead, the Court of Appeals observed that petitioner’s policy “screens out persons with a record of addiction,” and further noted that the company had not raised a business necessity defense, 298 F. 3d, at 1036-1087, and n. 19, factors that pertain to disparate-impact claims but not disparate-treatment claims. See, e. g., Grano v. Department of Development of Columbus, 637 F. 2d 1073, 1081 (CA6 1980) (“In a disparate impact situation . . . the issue is whether a neutral selection device ... screens out disproportionate numbers of [the protected class]”). By improperly focusing on these factors, the Court of Appeals ignored the fact that petitioner’s no-rehire policy is a quintessential legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to rehire an employee who was terminated for violating workplace conduct rules. If petitioner did indeed apply a neutral, generally applicable no-rehire policy in rejecting respondent’s application, petitioner’s decision not to rehire respondent can, in no way, be said to have been motivated by respondent’s disability.
The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to rehire respondent because it “serves to bar the re-employment of a drug addict despite his successful rehabilitation.” 298 F. 3d, at 1036-1037. We hold that such an analysis is inapplicable to a disparate-treatment claim. Once respondent had made a prima facie showing of discrimination, the next question for the Court of Appeals was whether petitioner offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions so as to demonstrate that its actions were not motivated by respondent’s disability. To the extent that the Court of Appeals strayed from this task by considering not only discriminatory intent but also discriminatory impact, we vacate its judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter took no part in the decision of this case. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Hughes has since been acquired by petitioner, Raytheon Company. For the sake of clarity, we refer to Hughes and Raytheon collectively as petitioner or the company.
The ADA defines the term “disability” as:
“(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;'
“(B) a record of such an impairment; or
“(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U. S. C. § 12102(2).
The Court in McDonnell Douglas set forth a burden-shifting scheme for discriminatory-treatment cases. Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action^ 411 U. S., at 802. If the employer meets this burden, the presumption of intentional discrimination disappears, but the plaintiff can still prove disparate treatment by, for instance, offering evidence demonstrating that the employer’s explanation is pretextual. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U. S. 133, 143 (2000). The Courts of Appeals have consistently utilized this burden-shifting approach when reviewing motions for summary judgment in disparate-treatment cases. See, e. g., Pugh v. Attica, 259 F. 3d 619, 626 (CA7 2001) (applying burden-shifting approach to an ADA disparate-treatment claim).
The Court of Appeals noted that “it is possible that a drug user may not be ‘disabled’ under the ADA if his drug use does not rise to the level of an addiction which substantially limits one or more of his major life activities.” 298 F. 3d, at 1033-1034, n. 9. The parties do not dispute that respondent was “disabled” at the time he quit in lieu of discharge and thus a record of the disability exists. We therefore need not decide in this case whether respondent’s employment record constitutes a “record of addiction,” which triggers the protections of the ADA.
The parties are also not disputing in this Court whether respondent was qualified for the position for which he applied.
This would not, of course, resolve the dispute over whether petitioner did in fact apply such a policy in this case. Indeed, the Court of Appeals expressed some confusion on this point, as the court first held that respondent “raise[d] a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was denied re-employment because of his past record of drug addiction,” id,., at 1034, but then later stated that there was “no question that [petitioner] applied this [no-rehire] policy in rejecting [respondent’s] application,” id., at 1036, n. 17.
The Court of Appeals characterized respondent’s workplace misconduct as merely “testing positive because of [his] addiction.” 298 F. 3d, at 1036. To the extent that the court suggested that, because respondent’s workplace misconduct is related to his disability, petitioner’s refusal to rehire respondent on account of that workplace misconduct violated the ADA, we point out that we have rejected a similar argument in the context of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. See Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U. S. 604, 611 (1993).
Indeed, despite the fact that the Nation’s antidiscrimination laws are undoubtedly aimed at “the problem of inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes,” ibid., the Court of Appeals held that the unfortunate result of petitioner’s application of its neutral policy was that Bockmiller may have made the employment decision in this case “remaining unaware of [respondent’s] ‘disability.’” 298 F. 3d, at 1036. The Court of Appeals did not explain, however, how it could be said that Bockmiller was motivated to reject respondent’s application because of his disability if Bockmiller was entirely unaware that such a disability existed. If Bockmiller were truly unaware that such a disability existed, it would be impossible for her hiring decision to have been based, even in part, on respondent’s disability. And, if no part of the hiring decision turned on respondent’s status as disabled, he cannot, ipso facto, have been subject to disparate treatment. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the respondent of the case. The respondent is the party being sued or tried and is also known as the appellee. Characterize the respondent as the Court's opinion identifies them.
Identify the respondent by the label given to the party in the opinion or judgment of the Court except where the Reports title a party as the "United States" or as a named state. Textual identification of parties is typically provided prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. The official syllabus, the summary that appears on the title page of the case, may be consulted as well. In describing the parties, the Court employs terminology that places them in the context of the specific lawsuit in which they are involved. For example, "employer" rather than "business" in a suit by an employee; as a "minority," "female," or "minority female" employee rather than "employee" in a suit alleging discrimination by an employer.
Also note that the Court's characterization of the parties applies whether the respondent is actually single entitiy or whether many other persons or legal entities have associated themselves with the lawsuit. That is, the presence of the phrase, et al., following the name of a party does not preclude the Court from characterizing that party as though it were a single entity. Thus, identify a single respondent, regardless of how many legal entities were actually involved. If a state (or one of its subdivisions) is a party, note only that a state is a party, not the state's name. | Who is the respondent of the case? | [
"attorney general of the United States, or his office",
"specified state board or department of education",
"city, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit",
"state commission, board, committee, or authority",
"county government or county governmental unit, except school district",
"court or judicial district",
"state department or agency",
"governmental employee or job applicant",
"female governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority female governmental employee or job applicant",
"not listed among agencies in the first Administrative Action variable",
"retired or former governmental employee",
"U.S. House of Representatives",
"interstate compact",
"judge",
"state legislature, house, or committee",
"local governmental unit other than a county, city, town, township, village, or borough",
"governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact",
"state or U.S. supreme court",
"local school district or board of education",
"U.S. Senate",
"U.S. senator",
"foreign nation or instrumentality",
"state or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate of",
"state college or university",
"United States",
"State",
"person accused, indicted, or suspected of crime",
"advertising business or agency",
"agent, fiduciary, trustee, or executor",
"airplane manufacturer, or manufacturer of parts of airplanes",
"airline",
"distributor, importer, or exporter of alcoholic beverages",
"alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked",
"American Medical Association",
"National Railroad Passenger Corp.",
"amusement establishment, or recreational facility",
"arrested person, or pretrial detainee",
"attorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association",
"author, copyright holder",
"bank, savings and loan, credit union, investment company",
"bankrupt person or business, or business in reorganization",
"establishment serving liquor by the glass, or package liquor store",
"water transportation, stevedore",
"bookstore, newsstand, printer, bindery, purveyor or distributor of books or magazines",
"brewery, distillery",
"broker, stock exchange, investment or securities firm",
"construction industry",
"bus or motorized passenger transportation vehicle",
"business, corporation",
"buyer, purchaser",
"cable TV",
"car dealer",
"person convicted of crime",
"tangible property, other than real estate, including contraband",
"chemical company",
"child, children, including adopted or illegitimate",
"religious organization, institution, or person",
"private club or facility",
"coal company or coal mine operator",
"computer business or manufacturer, hardware or software",
"consumer, consumer organization",
"creditor, including institution appearing as such; e.g., a finance company",
"person allegedly criminally insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial",
"defendant",
"debtor",
"real estate developer",
"disabled person or disability benefit claimant",
"distributor",
"person subject to selective service, including conscientious objector",
"drug manufacturer",
"druggist, pharmacist, pharmacy",
"employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of",
"employer-employee trust agreement, employee health and welfare fund, or multi-employer pension plan",
"electric equipment manufacturer",
"electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company",
"eleemosynary institution or person",
"environmental organization",
"employer. If employer's relations with employees are governed by the nature of the employer's business (e.g., railroad, boat), rather than labor law generally, the more specific designation is used in place of Employer.",
"farmer, farm worker, or farm organization",
"father",
"female employee or job applicant",
"female",
"movie, play, pictorial representation, theatrical production, actor, or exhibitor or distributor of",
"fisherman or fishing company",
"food, meat packing, or processing company, stockyard",
"foreign (non-American) nongovernmental entity",
"franchiser",
"franchisee",
"lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization",
"person who guarantees another's obligations",
"handicapped individual, or organization of devoted to",
"health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor",
"heir, or beneficiary, or person so claiming to be",
"hospital, medical center",
"husband, or ex-husband",
"involuntarily committed mental patient",
"Indian, including Indian tribe or nation",
"insurance company, or surety",
"inventor, patent assigner, trademark owner or holder",
"investor",
"injured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related",
"juvenile",
"government contractor",
"holder of a license or permit, or applicant therefor",
"magazine",
"male",
"medical or Medicaid claimant",
"medical supply or manufacturing co.",
"racial or ethnic minority employee or job applicant",
"minority female employee or job applicant",
"manufacturer",
"management, executive officer, or director, of business entity",
"military personnel, or dependent of, including reservist",
"mining company or miner, excluding coal, oil, or pipeline company",
"mother",
"auto manufacturer",
"newspaper, newsletter, journal of opinion, news service",
"radio and television network, except cable tv",
"nonprofit organization or business",
"nonresident",
"nuclear power plant or facility",
"owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels",
"shareholders to whom a tender offer is made",
"tender offer",
"oil company, or natural gas producer",
"elderly person, or organization dedicated to the elderly",
"out of state noncriminal defendant",
"political action committee",
"parent or parents",
"parking lot or service",
"patient of a health professional",
"telephone, telecommunications, or telegraph company",
"physician, MD or DO, dentist, or medical society",
"public interest organization",
"physically injured person, including wrongful death, who is not an employee",
"pipe line company",
"package, luggage, container",
"political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official",
"indigent, needy, welfare recipient",
"indigent defendant",
"private person",
"prisoner, inmate of penal institution",
"professional organization, business, or person",
"probationer, or parolee",
"protester, demonstrator, picketer or pamphleteer (non-employment related), or non-indigent loiterer",
"public utility",
"publisher, publishing company",
"radio station",
"racial or ethnic minority",
"person or organization protesting racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination",
"racial or ethnic minority student or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"realtor",
"journalist, columnist, member of the news media",
"resident",
"restaurant, food vendor",
"retarded person, or mental incompetent",
"retired or former employee",
"railroad",
"private school, college, or university",
"seller or vendor",
"shipper, including importer and exporter",
"shopping center, mall",
"spouse, or former spouse",
"stockholder, shareholder, or bondholder",
"retail business or outlet",
"student, or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"taxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only",
"tenant or lessee",
"theater, studio",
"forest products, lumber, or logging company",
"person traveling or wishing to travel abroad, or overseas travel agent",
"trucking company, or motor carrier",
"television station",
"union member",
"unemployed person or unemployment compensation applicant or claimant",
"union, labor organization, or official of",
"veteran",
"voter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)",
"wholesale trade",
"wife, or ex-wife",
"witness, or person under subpoena",
"network",
"slave",
"slave-owner",
"bank of the united states",
"timber company",
"u.s. job applicants or employees",
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"General Land Office of Commissioners",
"Transportation Security Administration",
"Surface Transportation Board",
"U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.",
"Reconstruction Finance Corp.",
"Department or Secretary of Homeland Security",
"Unidentifiable",
"International Entity"
] | [
73
] | sc |
CHEEK v. UNITED STATES
No. 89-658.
Argued October 3, 1990
Decided January 8, 1991
White, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O’ConnoR, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 207. Blackmun, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 209. SoutER, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
William R. Coulson argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Susan M. Keegdn.
Edwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for tljie United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Peterson, Deputy Solicitor General Bryson, Robert E. Lindsay, and Alan Hechtkopf.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title 26, §7201 of the United States Code provides that any person “who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof” shall be guilty of a felony. Under 26 U. S. C. § 7203, “[a]ny person required under this title ... or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return . . . who willfully fails to . . . make such return” shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. This case turns on the meaning of the word “willfully” as used in §§7201 and 7203.
I
Petitioner John L. Cheek has been a pilot for American Airlines since 1973. He filed federal income tax returns through 1979 but thereafter ceased to file returns. He also claimed an increasing number of withholding allowances — eventually claiming 60 allowances by mid-1980 — and for the years 1981 to 1984 indicated on his W-4 forms that he was exempt from federal income taxes. In 1983, petitioner unsuccessfully sought a refund of all tax withheld by his employer in 1982. Petitioner’s income during this period at all times far exceeded the minimum necessary to trigger the statutory filing requirement.
As a result of his activities, petitioner was indicted for 10 violations of federal law. He was charged with six counts of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return for the years 1980, 1981, and 1983 through 1986, in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 7203. He was further charged with three counts of willfully attempting to evade his income taxes for the years 1980, 1981, and 1983 in violation of §7201. In those years, American Airlines withheld substantially less than the amount of tax petitioner owed because of the numerous allowances and exempt status he claimed on his W-4 forms. The tax offenses with which petitioner was charged are specific intent crimes that require the defendant to have acted willfully.
At trial, the evidence established that between 1982 and 1986, petitioner was involved in at least four civil cases that challenged various aspects of the federal income tax system. In all four of those cases, the plaintiffs were informed by the courts that many of their arguments, including that they were not taxpayers within the meaning of the tax laws, that wages are not income, that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize the imposition of an income tax on individuals, and that the Sixteenth Amendment is unenforceable, were frivolous or had been repeatedly rejected by the courts. During this time period, petitioner also attended at least two criminal trials of persons charged with tax offenses. In addition, there was evidence that in 1980 or 1981 an attorney had advised Cheek that the courts had rejected as frivolous the claim that wages are not income.
Cheek represented himself at trial and testified in his defense. He admitted that he had not filed personal income tax returns during the years in question. He testified that as early as 1978, he had begun attending seminars sponsored by, and following the advice of, a group that believes, among other things, that the federal tax system is unconstitutional. Some of the speakers at these meetings were lawyers who purported to give professional opinions about the invalidity of the federal income tax laws. Cheek produced a letter from an attorney stating that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries but only on gain or profit. Petitioner’s defense was that, based on the indoctrination he received from this group and from his own study, he sincerely believed that the tax laws were being unconstitutionally enforced and that his actions during the 1980-1986 period were lawful. He therefore argued that he had acted without the willfulness required for conviction of the various offenses with which he was charged.
In the course of its instructions, the trial court advised the jury that to prove “willfulness” the Government must prove the voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty, a burden that could not be proved by showing mistake, ignorance, or negligence. The court further advised the jury that an objectively reasonable good-faith misunderstanding of the law would negate willfulness, but mere disagreement with the law would not. The court described Cheek’s beliefs about the income tax system and instructed the jury that if it found that Cheek “honestly and reasonably believed that he was not required to pay income taxes or to file tax returns,” App. 81, a not guilty verdict should be returned.
After several hours of deliberation, the jury sent a note to the judge that stated in part:
“ ‘We have a basic disagreement between some of us as to if Mr. Cheek honestly & reasonably believed that he was not required to pay income taxes.
“ ‘Page 32 [the relevant jury instruction] discusses good faith misunderstanding & disagreement. Is there any additional clarification you can give us on this point?’” Id., at 85.
The District Judge responded with a supplemental instruction containing the following statements:
“[A] person’s opinion that the tax laws violate his constitutional rights does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding of the law. Furthermore, a person’s disagreement with the government’s tax collection systems and policies does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding of the law.” Id., at 86.
At the end of the first day of deliberation, the jury sent out another note saying that it still could not reach a verdict because “ ‘[w]e are divided on the issue as to if Mr. Cheek honestly & reasonably believed that he was not required to pay income tax.’” Id., at 87. When the jury resumed its deliberations, the District Judge gave the jury an additional instruction. This instruction stated in part that “[a]n honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense and does not negate willfulness,” id., at 88, and that “[ajdvice or research resulting in the conclusion that wages of a privately employed person are not income or that the tax laws are unconstitutional is not objectively reasonable and cannot serve as the basis for a good faith misunderstanding of the law defense.” Ibid. The court also instructed the jury that “[pjersistent refusal to acknowledge the law does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding of the law.” Ibid. Approximately two hours later, the jury returned a verdict finding petitioner guilty on all counts.
Petitioner appealed his convictions, arguing that the District Court erred by instructing the jury that only an objectively reasonable misunderstanding of the law negates the statutory willfulness requirement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected that contention and affirmed the convictions. 882 F. 2d 1263 (1989). In prior cases, the Seventh Circuit had made clear that good-faith misunderstanding of the law negates willfulness only if the defendant’s beliefs are objectively reasonable; in the Seventh Circuit, even actual ignorance is not a defense unless the defendant’s ignorance was itself objectively reasonable. See, e. g., United States v. Buckner, 830 F. 2d 102 (1987). In its opinion in this case, the court noted that several specified beliefs, including the beliefs that the tax laws are unconstitutional and that wages are not income, would not be objectively reasonable. Because the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation of “willfully” as used in these statutes conflicts with the decisions of several other Courts of Appeals, see, e. g., United States v. Whiteside, 810 F. 2d 1306, 1310-1311 (CA5 1987); United States v. Phillips, 775 F. 2d 262, 263-264 (CA10 1985); United States v. Aitken, 755 F. 2d 188, 191-193 (CA1 1985), we granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 1068 (1990).
i-H h-H
The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system. See, e. g., United States v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 153, 182 (1820) (Livingston, J., dissenting); Barlow v. United States, 7 Pet. 404, 411 (1833); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 167 (1879); Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, 218 U. S. 57, 68 (1910); Lambert v. California, 355 U. S. 225, 228 (1957); Liparota v. United States, 471 U. S. 419, 441 (1985) (White, J., dissenting); o. Holmes, The Common Law 47-48 (1881). Based on the notion that the law is definite and knowable, the common law presumed that every person knew the law. This common-law rule has been applied by the Court in numerous cases construing criminal statutes. See, e. g., United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U. S. 558 (1971); Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 119-124 (1974); Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U. S. 337 (1952).
The proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. Congress has accordingly softened the impact of the common-law presumption by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses. Thus, the Court almost 60 years ago interpreted the statutory term “willfully” as used in the federal criminal tax statutes as carving out an exception to the traditional rule. This special treatment of criminal tax offenses is largely due to the complexity of the tax laws. In United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389 (1933), the Court recognized that:
“Congress did not intend that a person, by reason of a bona fide misunderstanding as to his liability for the tax, as to his duty to make a return, or as to the adequacy of the records he maintained, should become a criminal by his mere failure to measure up to the prescribed standard of conduct.” Id., at 396.
The Court held that the defendant was entitled to an instruction with respect to whether he acted in good faith based on his actual belief. In Murdock, the Court interpreted the term “willfully” as used in the criminal tax statutes generally to mean “an act done with a bad purpose,” id., at 394, or with “an evil motive,” id., at 395.
Subsequent decisions have refined this proposition. In United States v. Bishop, 412 U. S. 346 (1973), we described the term “willfully” as connoting “a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty,” id., at 360, and did so with specific reference to the “bad faith or evil intent” language employed in Murdock. Still later, United States v. Pomponio, 429 U. S. 10 (1976) (per curiam), addressed a situation in which several defendants had been charged with willfully filing false tax returns. The jury was given an instruction on willfulness similar to the standard set forth in Bishop. In addition, it was instructed that “‘[g]ood motive alone is never a defense where the act done or omitted is a crime. ’ ” Id., at 11. The defendants were convicted but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the latter instruction was improper because the statute required a finding of bad purpose or evil motive. Ibid.
We reversed the Court of Appeals, stating that “the Court of Appeals incorrectly assumed that the reference to an ‘evil motive’ in United States v. Bishop, supra, and prior cases,” ibid., “requires proof of any motive other than an intentional violation of a known legal duty.” Id., at 12. As “the other Courts of Appeals that have considered the question have recognized, willfulness in this context simply means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.” Ibid. We concluded that after instructing the jury on willfulness, “[a]n additional instruction on good faith was unnecessary.” Id., at 13. Taken together, Bishop and Pomponio conclusively establish that the standard for the statutory willfulness requirement is the “voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.”
Ill
Cheek accepts the Pomponio definition of willfulness, Brief for Petitioner 5, and n. 4, 13, 36; Reply Brief for Petitioner 4, 6-7, 11, 13, but asserts that the District Court’s instructions and the Court of Appeals’ opinion departed from that definition. In particular, he challenges the ruling that a good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law, if it is to negate willfulness, must be objectively reasonable. We agree that the Court of Appeals and the District Court erred in this respect.
A
Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty. We deal first with the case where the issue is whether the defendant knew of the duty purportedly imposed by the provision of the statute or regulation he is accused of violating, a case in which there is no claim that the provision at issue is invalid. In such a case, if the Government proves actual knowledge of the pertinent legal duty, the prosecution, without more, has satisfied the knowledge component of the willfulness requirement. But carrying this burden requires negating a defendant’s claim of ignorance of the law or a claim that because of a misunderstanding of the law, he had a good-faith belief that he was not violating any of the provisions of the tax laws. This is so because one cannot be aware that the law imposes a duty upon him and yet be ignorant of it, misunderstand the law, or believe that the duty does not exist. In the end, the issue is whether, based on all the evidence, the Government has proved that the defendant was aware of the duty at issue, which cannot be true if the jury credits a good-faith misunderstanding and belief submission, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable.
In this case, if Cheek asserted that he truly believed that the Internal Revenue Code did not purport to treat wages as income, and the jury believed him, the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness, however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief. Of course, in deciding whether to credit Cheek’s good-faith belief claim, the jury would be free to consider any admissible evidence from any source showing that Cheek was aware of his duty to file a return and to treat wages as income, including evidence showing his awareness of the relevant provisions of the Code or regulations, of court decisions rejecting his interpretation of the tax law, of authoritative rulings of the Internal Revenue Service, or of any contents of the personal income tax return forms and accompanying instructions that made it plain that wages should be returned as income.
We thus disagree with the Court of Appeals’ requirement that a claimed good-faith belief must be objectively reasonable if it is to be considered as possibly negating the Government’s evidence purporting to show a defendant’s awareness of the legal duty at issue. Knowledge and belief are characteristically questions for the factfinder, in this case the jury. Characterizing a particular belief as not objectively reasonable transforms the inquiry into a legal one and would prevent the jury from considering it. It would of course be proper to exclude evidence having no relevance or probative value with respect to willfulness; but it is not contrary to common sense, let alone impossible, for a defendant to be ignorant of his duty based on an irrational belief that he has no duty, and forbidding the jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial provision. Cf. Francis v. Franklin, 471 U. S. 307 (1985); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979); Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246 (1952). It is common ground that this Court, where possible, interprets congressional enactments so as to avoid raising serious constitutional questions. See, e. g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62, and n. 30 (1932); Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U. S. 440, 465-466 (1989).
It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek’s understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be. Of course, the more unreasonable the asserted beliefs or misunderstandings are, the more likely the jury will consider them to be nothing more than simple disagreement with known legal duties imposed by the tax laws and will find that the Government has carried its burden of proving knowledge.
B
Cheek asserted in the trial court that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional as applied to him and thus could not legally impose any duty upon him of which he should have been aware. Such a submission is unsound, not because Cheek’s constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the Murdock-Pomponio line of cases does not support such a position. Those cases construed the willfulness requirement in the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to require proof of knowledge of the law. This was because in “our complex tax system, uncertainty often arises even among taxpayers who earnestly wish to follow the law,” and “ ‘[i]t is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank difference of opinion or innocent errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care.’” United States v. Bishop, 412 U. S. 346, 360-361 (1973) (quoting Spies v. United States, 317 U. S. 492, 496 (1943)).
Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. Thus in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax.
We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U. S. C. § 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, § 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. § 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and when he did was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under §§7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts, who “willfully” refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.
We thus hold that in a case like this, a defendant’s views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness and need not be heard by the jury, and, if they are, an instruction to disregard them would be proper. For this purpose, it makes no difference whether the claims of invalidity are frivolous or have substance. It was therefore not error in this case for the District Judge to instruct the jury not to consider Cheek’s claims that the tax laws were unconstitutional. However, it was error for the court to instruct the jury that petitioner’s asserted beliefs that wages are not income and that he was not a taxpayer within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code should not be considered by the jury in determining whether Cheek had acted willfully.
IV
For the reasons set forth in the opinion above, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cheek did file what the Court of Appeals described as a frivolous return in 1982.
Because petitioner filed a refund claim for the entire amount withheld by his employer in 1982, petitioner was also charged under 18 U. S. C. § 287 with one count of presenting a claim to an agency of the United States knowing the claim to be false and fraudulent.
In March 1982, Cheek and another employee of the company sued American Airlines to challenge the withholding of federal income taxes. In April 1982, Cheek sued the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the United States Tax Court, asserting that he was not a taxpayer or a person for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code and that his wages were not income, and making several other related claims. Cheek and four others also filed an action against the United States and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in Federal District Court, claiming that withholding taxes from their wages violated the Sixteenth Amendment. Finally, in 1985 Cheek filed claims with the IRS seeking to have refunded the taxes withheld from his wages in 1983 and 1984. When these claims were not allowed, he brought suit in the District Court claiming that the withholding was an unconstitutional taking of his property and that his wages were not income. In dismissing this action as frivolous, the District Court imposed costs and attorneys fees of $1,500 and a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in the amount of $10,000. The Court of Appeals agreed that Cheek’s claims were frivolous, reduced the District Court sanction to $5,000, and imposed an additional sanction of $1,500 for bringing a frivolous appeal.
The attorney also advised that despite the Fifth Amendment, the filing of a tax return was required and that á person could challenge the constitutionality of the system by suing for a refund after the taxes had been withheld, or by putting himself “at risk of criminal prosecution.”
“The defendant has testified as to what he states are his interpretations of the United States Constitution, court opinions, common law and other materials he has reviewed. ... He has also introduced materials which contain references to quotations from the United States Constitution, court opinions, statutes, and other sources.
“He testified he relied on his interpretations and on these materials in concluding that he was not a person required to file income tax returns for the year or years charged, was not required to pay income taxes and that he could claim exempt status on his W-4 forms, and that he could claim refunds of all moneys withheld.” App. 75-76.
“Among other things, Mr. Cheek contends that his wages from a private employer, American Airlines, does [sic] not constitute income under the Internal Revenue Service laws.” Id., at 81.
A note signed by all 12 jurors also informed the judge that although the jury found petitioner guilty, several jurors wanted to express their personal opinions of the case and that notes from these individual jurors to the court were “a complaint against the narrow & hard expression under the constraints of the law.” Id., at 90. At least two notes from individual jurors expressed the opinion that petitioner sincerely believed in his cause even though his beliefs might have been unreasonable.
The opinion stated, 882 F. 2d 1263, 1268-1269, n. 2 (CA7 1989), as follows:
“For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered ‘objectively reasonable’ in this circuit:
“(1) the belief that the sixteenth amendment to the constitution was improperly ratified and therefore never came into being;
“(2) the belief that the sixteenth amendment is unconstitutional generally;
“(3) the belief that the income tax violates the takings clause of the fifth amendment;
“(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional;
“(5) the belief that wages are not income and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;
“(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and
“(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income.
“Miller v. United States, 868 F. 2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Buckner,. 830 F. 2d at 102; United States v. Dube, 820 F. 2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1987); Coleman v. Comm’r, 791 F. 2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); Moore, 627 F. 2d at 833. We have no doubt that this list will increase with time.”
Cheek recognizes that a “defendant who knows what the law is and who disagrees with it. . . does not have a bona fide misunderstanding defense,” but asserts that “a defendant who has a bona fide misunderstanding of [the law] does not ‘know’ his legal duty and lacks willfulness.” Brief for Petitioner 29, and n. 13. The Reply Brief for Petitioner, at 13, states: “We are in no way suggesting that Cheek or anyone else is immune from criminal prosecution if he knows what the law is, but believes it should be otherwise, and therefore violates it.” See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 9, 11, 12, 15, 17.
In his opening and reply briefs and at oral argument, Cheek asserts that this case does not present the issue whether a claim of unconstitutionality would serve to negate willfulness and that we need not address the issue. Brief for Petitioner 13; Reply Brief for Petitioner 5, 11, 12; Tr. of Oral Arg. 6, 13. Cheek testified at trial, however, that “[i]t is my belief that the law is being enforced unconstitutionally.” App. 60. He also produced a letter from counsel advising him that “ ‘Finally you make a valid contention . . . that Congress’ power to tax comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U. S. Constitution, and not from the Sixteenth Amendment and that the [latter], construed with Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, never authorized a tax on wages and salaries, but only on gain and profit.” Id., at 57. We note also that the jury asked for “the portion [of the transcript] wherein Mr. Cheek stated he was attempting to test the constitutionality of the income tax laws,” Tr. 1704, and that the trial judge later instructed the jury that an opinion that the tax laws violate a person’s constitutional rights does not constitute a good-faith misunderstanding of the law. We also note that at oral argument Cheek’s counsel observed that “personal belief that a known statute is unconstitutional smacks of knowledge with existing law, but disagreement with it.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 5. He also opined:
“If the person believes as a personal belief that known — law known to them [sic] is unconstitutional, I submit that that would not be a defense, because what the person is really saying is I know what the law is, for constitutional reasons I have made my own determination that it is invalid. I am not suggesting that that is a defense.
“However, if the person was told by a lawyer or by an accountant erroneously that the statute is unconstitutional, and it’s my professional advice to you that you don’t have to follow it, then you have got a little different situation. This is not that case.” Id., at 6.
Given this posture of the case, we perceive no reason not to address the significance of Cheek’s constitutional claims to the issue of willfulness.
In United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389 (1933), discussed supra, at 200, the defendant Murdock was summoned to appear before a revenue agent for examination. Questions were put to him, which he refused to answer for fear of self-incrimination under state law. He was indicted for refusing to give testimony and supply information contrary to the pertinent provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. This Court affirmed the reversal of Murdock’s conviction, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction directing the jury to consider Murdock’s asserted claim of a good-faith, actual belief that because of the Fifth Amendment he was privileged not to answer the questions put to him. It is thus the case that Murdock’s asserted belief was grounded in the Constitution, but it was a claim of privilege not to answer, not a claim that any provision of the tax laws were unconstitutional, and not a claim for which the tax laws provided procedures to entertain and resolve. Cheek’s position at trial, in contrast, was that the tax laws were unconstitutional as applied to him.
Cheek argues that applying to him the Court of Appeals' standard of objective reasonableness violates his rights under the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. Since we have invalidated the challenged standard on statutory grounds, we need not address these submissions. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether the petitioning party (i.e., the plaintiff or the appellant) emerged victorious. The victory the Supreme Court provided the petitioning party may not have been total and complete (e.g., by vacating and remanding the matter rather than an unequivocal reversal), but the disposition is nonetheless a favorable one. Consider that the petitioning party lost if the Supreme Court affirmed or dismissed the case, or denied the petition. Consider that the petitioning party won in part or in full if the Supreme Court reversed, reversed and remanded, vacated and remanded, affirmed and reversed in part, affirmed and reversed in part and remanded, or vacated the case. | Consider that the petitioning party lost if the Supreme Court affirmed or dismissed the case, or denied the petition. Consider that the petitioning party won in part or in full if the Supreme Court reversed, reversed and remanded, vacated and remanded, affirmed and reversed in part, affirmed and reversed in part and remanded, or vacated the case. Did the petitioning win the case? | [
"Yes",
"No"
] | [
0
] | sc |
ARTEAGA v. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6749.
Decided February 23, 1998
Together with Arteaga v. Wilson, Governor of California, et al., also on motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis.
Per Curiam.
Pro se petitioner Lorenzo Arteaga seeks leave to proceed informa pauperis to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal with prejudice of petitioner’s complaint for failure to amend his complaints pursuant to the District Court’s instructions.
We deny petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He is allowed, until March 16,1998, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with Rule 38.1. For the reasons discussed below, we also direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for certiorari in noneriminal matters from petitioner unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Petitioner has filed 20 petitions with this Court, 16 in the past two Terms. All have been denied without recorded dissent. In 1997, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny petitioner in forma pauperis status. Arteaga v. California, post, p. 804. Petitioner nevertheless has filed another frivolous petition with this Court. In his petition and supplemental petition, Arteaga appears to assert that he is an innocent person falsely imprisoned and to allege numerous constitutional violations and conspiracies among prison, court, and government officials. He does not address the reasons for the . District Court’s dismissal.
Accordingly, we enter this order barring prospective in forma pauperis filings by petitioner in noncriminal cases for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
It is so ordered. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the disposition of the case, that is, the treatment the Supreme Court accorded the court whose decision it reviewed. The information relevant to this variable may be found near the end of the summary that begins on the title page of each case, or preferably at the very end of the opinion of the Court. For cases in which the Court granted a motion to dismiss, consider "petition denied or appeal dismissed". There is "no disposition" if the Court denied a motion to dismiss. | What is the disposition of the case, that is, the treatment the Supreme Court accorded the court whose decision it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed (includes modified)",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"certification to or from a lower court",
"no disposition"
] | [
1
] | sc |
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. DEENA ARTWARE, INC., et al.
No. 46.
Argued December 8, 1959.
Decided February 23, 1960.
Ralph S. Spritzer argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Stuart Rothman, Thomas J. McDermott and Dominick L. Manoli.
James G. Wheeler argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Mervin N. Bachman, Thomas J. Marshall, Jr. and Sidney R. Zatz.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This litigation has been long and drawn out and the present case is merely a small segment of it. In 1949 petitioner found that respondent Deena Artware, Inc. (Artware), had violated the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a), by discharging and refusing to reinstate 66 employees who had engaged in a strike (86 N. L. R. B. 732, 95 N. L. R. B. 9); and it ordered Artware “and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns” to offer reinstatement to those employees and to make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by them as a result of the discriminating action. The Court of Appeals in 1952 affirmed the Board’s decision with respect to 62 of the 66 employees and entered a decree enforcing the Board’s order, 198 F. 2d 645, remanding the case to the Board to determine the amounts due the individual employees. In 1953 Artware offered reinstatement to all of these employees but shortly closed its plant (which was located in Kentucky), never resumed operations, and never paid any back pay to the employees in question.
It appears that Weiner, one of the respondents, created a series of corporations, at the top of which was Deena Products, Inc. (Products), an Illinois corporation. Beneath it was a group of. subsidiaries — formed under Kentucky law — Artware, Deena of Arlington, Inc., Sippi Products Co., Inc., and Industrial Realty Co., Inc. — all of whose shares, except for qualifying shares, were owned by Products. Weiner owned all the shares of Products, except for qualifying shares; and all the officers and directors of Products and the several subsidiaries were .Weiner, his wife, his son, and his secretary. Weiner was president and treasurer of Products and of each of the subsidiaries, including Artware.
Artware in 1949 gave Products a promissory note secured by a mortgage on Artware’s property, allegedly for advances made. In 1952 Artware made an assignment to Products in partial satisfaction, of its indebtedness. In 1953 the Board applied to the Court of Appeals for an order restraining that assignment. It also asked for an order of discovery, alleging that the affairs of Products and Artware were being conducted in such a way as to dissipate Artware’s assets and to avoid making the back wage payments. The court denied these motions, holding that, until the amount of back pay was liquidated and payment of the fixed sum refused, there was no warrant for granting that relief (207 F. 2d 798), the court, adding that if upon liquidation of Artware “any financial inability” on its part to pay the awards was shown to be “the result of improper actions on its part in the meantime, appropriate contempt action can then- be taken.” Id., at 802.
At that time, the Board had not issued an order determining the specific amounts of back pay owed the individual employees. In 1955 — nearly two years later — it made that determination and entered an order, directing payment of back pay totaling about $300,000; and the Court of Appeals' ordered Artware, “its officers, agents, successors and assigns” to pay that amount to specified employees. 228 F. 2d 871. That' was on December 16, 1955.
In 1957 the Board moved the Court of Appeals for discovery, inspection, and depositions, naming Artware, Weiner, Products, and the other subsidiaries of Products. It alleged that Weiner had caused the assets of Artware to be siphoned off through the other corporations under his control for the purpose of evading the back pay obligation. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, 251 F. 2d 183, holding that a contempt proceeding, rather than discovery, was the proper procedure.
On August 20, 1958, the Board petitioned the Court of Appeals to hold Artware, Weiner, Products and the other subsidiaries in civil contempt for failure to pay the amounts due employees under the back pay order. On October 11, 1958, the Board renewed its motion for discovery, inspection, and the taking of depositions from Artware, the affiliated corporations, and Weiner and other officers of these corporations. ■
In its petition the Board made charges of dealings between these corporations and between them and Weiner occurring from 1949 to 1955 which, it maintained, showed both (1) fraud and wrongdoing for the purpose of frustrating the back pay order and (2) the operation of these various corporations “as 'a single enterprise,” each of the corporations performing “a particular function, as a department or division of the one enterprise in the manufacture, sale- and distribution of the common product.” The allegations (which are summarized in the opinion below, 261 F. 2d 503, 506-507) need not be repeated here, as the Court of Appeals merely held that, although the enforcement order was entered July 30, 1952, it was not made specific as to amounts owed until December 16, 1955. It, therefore, concluded that prior to the latter date the decree was “not sufficiently definite and mandatory to serve as the basis for contempt proceedings.” Id., at 510. It, therefore, dismissed the Board’s petition for adjudication in civil contempt. It also denied the Board’s motion for discovery, inspection, and depositions. 261 F. 2d 503, 510. The case is here on a petition for certiorari, 359 U. S. 983, which we granted in order to consider the validity of the action of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the petition insofar as it charged the existence of “a single enterprise.”
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition without considering the second group of allegations made by the Board, viz., that these various corporations were in fact “a single enterprise.” ■ And it denied the motion for discovery even as it pertained to that alternative theory of liability. It may have done so because it thought that the issues tendered in the petition related solely to inter-company transactions alleged to be conveyances in fraud of creditors or preferences in favor of some creditors. That seemed to be its preoccupation, as is evident by its references to possible causes of action under Kentucky law to set those transactions aside. Id., at 509.
We do not stop to consider what would be a proper formulation of a rule of law governing liability in contempt for frustration of a decree. The Court of Appeals may have considered the transactions and assignments as if they were made between separate and distinct corporations. If they are viewed in that light, we cannot say they are so colorable as to warrant us in reversing the Court of Appeals. But we think the Board is entitled to show that these separate corporations are not what they appear to be, that in truth they are but divisions or departments of a “single enterprise.”- That is the alternative theory of liability which the Court of Appeals did not consider. We think that the Board is entitled to a hearing un that alternative theory and to discovery in aid of it.
The question whether the corporations under Weiner’s ownership were only departments or divisions in one single enterprise is in a different category than those that arise under either 13 Eliz. or the modern law of preferences. Whether one corporation is liable for the obligations of an affiliate turns on other considerations. The insulation of a stockholder from the debts and obligations of his corporation is the norm, not the exception. See Pullman Car Co. v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 115 U. S. 587, 597. Yet as Mr. Justice Cardozo said in Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N. Y. 84, 95, 155 N. E. 58, 61, “Dominion may be so complete, interference so obtrusive, that by the general rules of agency the parent will be a principal and the subsidiary an agent. Where control is less than this, we are remitted to the tests of honesty and justice.” That is not a complete catalogue. The several companies may be represented as one. Apart from that is the question whether in fact the economic enterprise is one, the corporate forms being largely paper arrangements that do not reflect the business realities. One company may in fact be operated as-a division of another; one may be only a shell, inadequately financed; the affairs of the group may be so intermingled "that no distinct corporate lines are maintained. These are some, though by no means all, of the relevant considerations, as the authorities recognize. See Lattin on Corporations (1959) ch. 2, §§ 13, 14; Stevens on Corporations (1949) § 17; Berle, The Theory of Enterprise Entity, 47 Col. L. Rev. 343.
We do not intimate an opinion on the merits of this alternative theory of liability. The authorities we have cited merely indicate the range of inquiry which the petition of the Board presented. Discovery is useful in determining what the facts are. It is, indeed, necessary to determine whether the decree of the court enforcing the Board’s order should run to any of the affiliated corporations or their stockholders. When the facts are resolved, it will be time enough to consider what further enforcement decree, if any, would be appropriate.
The petition should be reinstated insofar as it charges the existence of “a single enterprise,” and the motion for discovery should be granted so that the Board will have an opportunity to prove those allegations.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See Platt v. Bradner Co., 131 Wash. 573, 230 P. 633. Cf. American Nat. Bank v. National Wall-Paper Co., 77 F. 85, 91.
See Foard Co. v. Maryland, 219 F. 827, 829; Portsmouth Cotton Oil Corp. v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 280 F. 879; Dillard & Coffin Co. v. Richmond Cotton Oil Co., 140 Tenn. 290, 296, 204 S. W. 758; Costan v. Manila Electric Co., 24 F. 2d 383, 384-385. Cf. United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 238 U. S. 516, 529; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis Civic Assn., 247 U. S. 490, 500-502; Erickson v. Minnesota & Ontario Power Co., 134 Minn. 209, 213-215,158 N. W. 979, 980-981.
See Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. W. R. Grace & Co., 267 F. 676, 681; Oriental Investment Co. v. Barclay, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 543, 554-557, 64 S. W. 80, 86-87. For discussion of the situation where a company is “deliberately kept judgment-proof” see Weisser v. Mursam Shoe Corp., 127 F. 2d 344, 346.
See The Willem van Driel, 252 F. 35, 38; Wichita Falls & N. W. R. Co. v. Puckett, 53 Okla. 463, 502-505, 157 P. 112, 124-125. Cf. United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 220 U. S. 257, 272-274.
Cf. Union Sulphur Co. v. Freeport Texas Co., 251 F. 634, 661-662; Harlan Public Service Co. v. Eastern Constr. Co., 254 Ky. 135, 143, 71 S. W. 2d 24, 29.
Cf. Regal Knitwear Co. v. Labor Board, 324 U. S. 9, 16. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded. | What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"modify",
"remand",
"unusual disposition"
] | [
8
] | sc |
KANSAS, Petitioner
v.
Scott D. CHEEVER.
No. 12-609.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Oct. 16, 2013.
Decided Dec. 11, 2013.
Syllabus*
Shortly after respondent Cheever was charged with capital murder, the Kansas Supreme Court found the State's death penalty scheme unconstitutional. State prosecutors then dismissed their charges to allow federal authorities to prosecute him. When Cheever filed notice that he intended to introduce expert evidence that methamphetamine intoxication negated his ability to form specific intent, the Federal District Court ordered Cheever to submit to a psychiatric evaluation. The federal case was eventually dismissed without prejudice. Meanwhile, this Court held the State's death penalty scheme constitutional, see Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 126 S.Ct. 2516, 165 L.Ed.2d 429. The State then brought a second prosecution. At trial, Cheever raised a voluntary intoxication defense, offering expert testimony regarding his methamphetamine use. In rebuttal, the State sought to present testimony from the expert who had examined Cheever by the Federal District Court order. Defense counsel objected, arguing that since Cheever had not agreed to the examination, introduction of the testimony would violate the Fifth Amendment proscription against compelling an accused to testify against himself. The trial court allowed the testimony, and the jury found Cheever guilty and voted to impose a death sentence. The Kansas Supreme Court vacated the conviction and sentence, relying on Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359, in which this Court held that a court-ordered psychiatric examination violated a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights when the defendant neither initiated the examination nor put his mental capacity in dispute. The court distinguished the holding of Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 107 S.Ct. 2906, 97 L.Ed.2d 336, that a State may introduce the results of such an examination for the limited purpose of rebutting a mental-status defense, on the basis that voluntary intoxication is not a mental disease or defect under Kansas law.
Held : The rule of Buchanan, reaffirmed here, applies in this case to permit the prosecution to offer the rebuttal evidence at issue. Pp. 600 - 603.
(a) In Buchanan, the prosecution presented evidence from a court-ordered evaluation to rebut the defendant's affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. This Court concluded that this rebuttal testimony did not offend the Fifth Amendment, holding that when a defense expert who has examined the defendant testifies that the defendant lacked the requisite mental state to commit an offense, the prosecution may present psychiatric evidence in rebuttal. Buchanan 's reasoning was not limited to the circumstance that the evaluation was requested jointly by the defense and the government. Nor did the case turn on whether state law referred to extreme emotional disturbance as an affirmative defense. Pp. 600 - 601.
(b) The admission of rebuttal testimony under the rule of Buchanan harmonizes with the principle that when a defendant chooses to testify in a criminal case, the Fifth Amendment does not allow him to refuse to answer related questions on cross-examination. See Fitzpatrick v. United States, 178 U.S. 304, 315, 20 S.Ct. 944, 44 L.Ed. 1078. Here, the prosecution elicited testimony from its expert only after Cheever offered expert testimony about his inability to form the requisite mens rea. Excluding this testimony would have undermined Buchanan and the core truth-seeking function of trial. Pp. 601 - 602.
(c) This Court is not persuaded by the Kansas Supreme Court's reasoning that Cheever did not waive his Fifth Amendment privilege because voluntary intoxication is not a mental disease or defect as a matter of state law. "Mental disease or defect" is not the salient phrase under this Court's precedents, which use the much broader phrase "mental status," Buchanan, 483 U.S., at 423, 107 S.Ct. 2906. Mental-status defenses include those based on psychological expert evidence as to a defendant's mens rea, mental capacity to commit the crime, or ability to premeditate. To the extent that the Kansas Supreme Court declined to apply Buchanan because Cheever's intoxication was "temporary," this Court's precedents are again not so narrowly circumscribed, as evidenced by the fact that the courts where Buchanan was tried treated his extreme emotional disturbance as a "temporary" condition. Pp. 601 - 602.
(d) This Court declines to address in the first instance Cheever's contention that the prosecution's use of the court-ordered psychiatric examination exceeded the rebuttal-purpose limit established by Buchanan, see 483 U.S., at 424, 107 S.Ct. 2906. P. 603.
295 Kan. 229, 284 P.3d 1007, vacated and remanded.
SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Derek Schmidt, Attorney General, for Petitioner.
Nichole A. Saharsky, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the petitioner.
Neal Katyal, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Derek Schmidt, Attorney General of Kansas, Counsel of Record, Stephen R. McAllister, Solicitor General of Kansas, Kristafer R. Ailslieger, Deputy Solicitor General, Natalie Chalmers, Assistant Solicitor General, Topeka, for Petitioner.
Debra J. Wilson, Capital and Conflicts, Appellate Defender, Capital Appeals and Conflicts Office, Topeka, KS, Neal Kumar Katyal, Counsel of Record, Dominic F. Perella, Mary Helen Wimberly, Sean Marotta, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...." The question here is whether the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from introducing evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of a criminal defendant to rebut that defendant's presentation of expert testimony in support of a defense of voluntary intoxication. We hold that it does not.
I
On the morning of January 19, 2005, Scott Cheever shot and killed Matthew Samuels, a sheriff of Greenwood County, Kansas, and shot at other local law enforcement officers. In the hours before the shooting, Cheever and his friends had cooked and smoked methamphetamine at a home near Hilltop, Kansas. Samuels and multiple deputies drove there to arrest Cheever on an unrelated outstanding warrant.
When one of Cheever's friends warned him that officers were en route, Cheever rushed outside and tried to drive away, but his car had a flat tire. He returned inside and hid with a friend in an upstairs bedroom, holding a loaded .44 caliber revolver. Cheever then heard footsteps on the stairs leading up to the room, and he stepped out and shot Samuels, who was climbing the stairs. After briefly returning to the bedroom, Cheever walked back to the staircase and shot Samuels again. He also shot at a deputy and a detective, as well as members of a local SWAT (special weapons and tactics) team that had since arrived. Only Samuels was hit.
The State charged Cheever with capital murder. But shortly thereafter, in an unrelated case, the Kansas Supreme Court found the State's death penalty scheme unconstitutional. State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520, 102 P.3d 445 (2004). Rather than continuing to prosecute Cheever without any chance of a death sentence, state prosecutors dismissed their charges and allowed federal authorities to prosecute Cheever under the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 3591 et seq.
In the federal case, Cheever filed notice that he "intend[ed] to introduce expert evidence relating to his intoxication by methamphetamine at the time of the events on January 19, 2005, which negated his ability to form specific intent, e.g., malice aforethought, premeditation and deliberation." App. to Pet. for Cert. 69-70. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2(b), the District Court ordered Cheever to submit to a psychiatric evaluation by Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist, to assess how methamphetamine use had affected him when he shot Samuels. Welner interviewed Cheever for roughly five and a half hours.
The federal case proceeded to trial. Seven days into jury selection, however, defense counsel became unable to continue; the court suspended the proceedings and later dismissed the case without prejudice. Meanwhile, this Court had reversed the Kansas Supreme Court and held that the Kansas death penalty statute was constitutional. Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 167, 126 S.Ct. 2516, 165 L.Ed.2d 429 (2006). A second federal prosecution never commenced.
Kansas then brought a second state prosecution. At the state trial, Cheever presented a voluntary-intoxication defense, arguing that his methamphetamine use had rendered him incapable of premeditation. In support of this argument, Cheever offered testimony from Roswell Lee Evans, a specialist in psychiatric pharmacy and dean of the Auburn University School of Pharmacy. Evans opined that Cheever's long-term methamphetamine use had damaged his brain.1 Evans also testified that on the morning of the shooting, Cheever was acutely intoxicated. According to Evans, Cheever's actions were "very much influenced by" his use of methamphetamine.
After the defense rested, the State sought to present rebuttal testimony from Welner, the expert who had examined Cheever by order of the federal court. Defense counsel objected, arguing that because Welner's opinions were based in part on an examination to which Cheever had not voluntarily agreed, his testimony would violate the Fifth Amendment proscription against compelling an accused to testify against himself. The State countered that the testimony was necessary to rebut Cheever's voluntary-intoxication defense.
The trial court agreed with the State. The court was persuaded, in part, by the fact that the defense expert had himself relied on Welner's examination report: "I think that fact alone probably allows the State to call [Welner] to give his own point of view." App. 92. The court allowed Welner's testimony for the purpose of showing that Cheever shot Samuels "because of his antisocial personality, not because his brain was impaired by methamphetamine." Id., at 94.
The jury found Cheever guilty of murder and attempted murder. At the penalty phase, it unanimously voted to impose a sentence of death, and the trial court accepted that verdict.
On appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court, Cheever argued that the State had violated his Fifth Amendment rights when it introduced, through Welner's testimony, statements that he had made during the federal court-ordered mental examination. The court agreed, relying primarily on Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), in which we held that a court-ordered psychiatric examination violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights when the defendant neither initiated the examination nor put his mental capacity in dispute at trial. 295 Kan. 229, 243-244, 284 P.3d 1007, 1019-1020 (2012) ( per curiam ). The court acknowledged, id., at 244-245, 284 P.3d, at 1020, our holding that a State may introduce the results of a court-ordered mental examination for the limited purpose of rebutting a mental-status defense. Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 423-424, 107 S.Ct. 2906, 97 L.Ed.2d 336 (1987). But it distinguished Buchanan on the basis that under Kansas law, voluntary intoxication is not a "mental disease or defect." 295 Kan., at 250, 284 P.3d, at 1023. Consequently, it vacated Cheever's conviction and sentence, holding that Cheever had not waived his Fifth Amendment privilege and that his federal court-ordered examination should not have been used against him at the state-court trial. Ibid. We granted certiorari, 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1460, 185 L.Ed.2d 360 (2013), and now reverse.
II
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...." We held in Estelle that under the Fifth Amendment, when a criminal defendant "neither initiates a psychiatric evaluation nor attempts to introduce any psychiatric evidence," his compelled statements to a psychiatrist cannot be used against him. 451 U.S., at 468, 101 S.Ct. 1866. In that case, a judge ordered a psychiatric examination to determine the defendant's competency to stand trial. Id., at 456-457, 101 S.Ct. 1866. The prosecution then used statements from that examination during the sentencing phase of the trial as evidence of the defendant's future dangerousness. Id., at 458-460, 101 S.Ct. 1866. Emphasizing that the defendant had neither "introduced" any "psychiatric evidence," nor even "indicated that he might do so," id., at 466, 101 S.Ct. 1866, we concluded that the Fifth Amendment did not permit the State to use the defendant's statements in this manner.
In Buchanan, we addressed the admissibility of evidence from a court-ordered evaluation where-unlike in Estelle-a defendant had introduced psychiatric evidence related to his mental-status defense. We held that the Fifth Amendment allowed the prosecution to present evidence from the evaluation to rebut the defendant's affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. And while, as Cheever notes, the mental evaluation in Buchanan was requested jointly by the defense and the government, our holding was not limited to that circumstance. Moreover, contrary to Cheever's suggestion, the case did not turn on whether state law referred to extreme emotional disturbance as an "affirmative defense." Buchanan, 483 U.S., at 408, 422, 107 S.Ct. 2906 (holding that the prosecution's use of rebuttal expert testimony is permissible where a defendant "presents psychiatric evidence"). The rule of Buchanan, which we reaffirm today, is that where a defense expert who has examined the defendant testifies that the defendant lacked the requisite mental state to commit an offense, the prosecution may present psychiatric evidence in rebuttal. Ibid. Any other rule would undermine the adversarial process, allowing a defendant to provide the jury, through an expert operating as proxy, with a one-sided and potentially inaccurate view of his mental state at the time of the alleged crime.
The admission of this rebuttal testimony harmonizes with the principle that when a defendant chooses to testify in a criminal case, the Fifth Amendment does not allow him to refuse to answer related questions on cross-examination. A defendant "has no right to set forth to the jury all the facts which tend in his favor without laying himself open to a cross-examination upon those facts." Fitzpatrick v. United States, 178 U.S. 304, 315, 20 S.Ct. 944, 44 L.Ed. 1078 (1900). We explained in Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 78 S.Ct. 622, 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958), which involved a witness's refusal to answer questions in a civil case, that where a party provides testimony and then refuses to answer potentially incriminating questions, "[t]he interests of the other party and regard for the function of courts of justice to ascertain the truth become relevant, and prevail in the balance of considerations determining the scope and limits of the privilege against self-incrimination." Id., at 156, 78 S.Ct. 622 . When a defendant presents evidence through a psychological expert who has examined him, the government likewise is permitted to use the only effective means of challenging that evidence: testimony from an expert who has also examined him. See United States v. Byers, 740 F.2d 1104, 1113 (C.A.D.C.1984) (en banc) (holding that the Government could present rebuttal expert testimony in part because it is perhaps "the most trustworthy means of attempting to meet" the burden of proof (internal quotation marks omitted)).2
The prosecution here elicited testimony from its expert only after Cheever offered expert testimony about his inability to form the requisite mens rea. The testimony of the government expert rebutted that of Cheever's expert. See id. at 1114 ("Ordinarily the only effective rebuttal of psychiatric opinion testimony is contradictory opinion testimony; and for that purpose ... the basic tool of psychiatric study remains the personal interview, which requires rapport between the interviewer and the subject" (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Druke, 143 Ariz. 314, 318, 693 P.2d 969, 973 (App.1984) ("[A]n inference would arise that the evidence presented by the [defendant] as to his mental condition is true because uncontradicted"). The trial court therefore did not violate the Fifth Amendment when it allowed Welner to testify that Cheever "made a choice to shoot," App. 131, because the State permissibly followed where the defense led. Excluding this testimony would have undermined Buchanan and the core truth-seeking function of the trial.
III
Neither the Kansas Supreme Court's reasoning, nor Cheever's arguments, persuade us not to apply the settled rule of Buchanan.
A
Although the Kansas Supreme Court acknowledged that the State may present evidence obtained from a compelled psychiatric examination when "the defendant presents evidence at trial that he or she lacked the requisite criminal intent due to mental disease or defect," 295 Kan., at 249, 284 P.3d, at 1023, it reasoned that voluntary intoxication is not a "mental disease or defect" as a matter of state law. Id., at 250, 284 P.3d, at 1023-1024 (citing State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 40 P.3d 139 (2001)). The court therefore concluded that "Cheever did not waive his Fifth Amendment privilege and thus permit his court-ordered examination by Dr. Welner to be used against him at trial." 295 Kan., at 251, 284 P.3d, at 1024.
This reasoning misconstrues our precedents. Although Kansas law defines "mental disease or defect" narrowly, to exclude voluntary intoxication, that phrase is actually not the salient one under our precedents. In Buchanan, we permitted rebuttal testimony where the defendant presented evidence of "the 'mental status' defense of extreme emotional disturbance." 483 U.S., at 423, 107 S.Ct. 2906. And "mental status" is a broader term than "mental disease or defect," at least to the extent that Kansas law excludes voluntary intoxication from that definition. Mental-status defenses include those based on psychological expert evidence as to a defendant's mens rea, mental capacity to commit the crime, or ability to premeditate. Defendants need not assert a "mental disease or defect" in order to assert a defense based on "mental status."
To the extent that the Kansas Supreme Court declined to apply Buchanan because Cheever's intoxication was "temporary," our precedents are again not so narrowly circumscribed. Like voluntary intoxication, extreme emotional disturbance is a "temporary" condition, at least according to the Kentucky state courts where Buchanan was tried. See McClellan v. Commonwealth, 715 S.W.2d 464, 468-469 (Ky.1986) (defining extreme emotional disturbance as "a temporary state of mind so enraged, inflamed, or disturbed as to overcome one's judgment, and to cause one to act uncontrollably from [an] impelling force of [an] extreme emotional disturbance rather than from evil or malicious purposes"). We nonetheless held in Buchanan that the defense of extreme emotional disturbance, when supported by expert testimony, may be rebutted with expert testimony. The same is true here. Cheever's psychiatric evidence concerned his mental status because he used it to argue that he lacked the requisite mental capacity to premeditate. The Fifth Amendment therefore did not bar the State from using Welner's examination to rebut Cheever's voluntary-intoxication defense.
B
Cheever further contends that the Fifth Amendment imposes limits on the State's ability to introduce rebuttal evidence regarding a defendant's mental status. According to Cheever, Welner's testimony exceeded these limits by describing the shooting from Cheever's perspective; 3 by insinuating that he had a personality disorder; and by discussing his alleged infatuation with criminals.
We have held that testimony based on a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation is admissible only for a "limited rebuttal purpose." Buchanan, 483 U.S., at 424, 107 S.Ct. 2906. In Buchanan, for example, although the prosecution had used a psychiatric report to rebut the defendant's evidence of extreme emotional disturbance, we noted that the trial court had redacted the report so as to avoid exposing the jury to "the very different issue" of the defendant's competency to stand trial. Id., at 423, n. 20, 107 S.Ct. 2906. Two years later, we explained in dictum that "[n]othing" in our precedents "suggests that a defendant opens the door to the admission of psychiatric evidence on future dangerousness by raising an insanity defense at the guilt stage of the trial." Powell v. Texas, 492 U.S. 680, 685-686, n. 3, 109 S.Ct. 3146, 106 L.Ed.2d 551 (1989) ( per curiam ). Here, however, the Kansas Supreme Court did not address whether Welner's testimony exceeded the scope of rebuttal testimony permitted by the Fifth Amendment or by the State's evidentiary rules. We accordingly decline to address this issue in the first instance.4
We hold that where a defense expert who has examined the defendant testifies that the defendant lacked the requisite mental state to commit a crime, the prosecution may offer evidence from a court-ordered psychological examination for the limited purpose of rebutting the defendant's evidence.
The judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
Evans described this damage as "neurotoxicity," which is "the quality of exerting a destructive or poisonous effect upon the nerve tissue." The Sloane-Dorland Annotated Medical-Legal Dictionary 498 (1987).
For that reason, we reject Cheever's suggestion that the State could effectively have rebutted the testimony of his expert by introducing testimony from experts who had not personally examined him.
In an extended soliloquy, Dr. Welner narrated the crime from Cheever's perspective, in part as follows: "I don't jump out of the window the way my confederate later does. And when I do shoot, I don't shoot before Matthew Samuels walks through the curtain in such a way that I might scare him, the way my later shots frightened the deputies that came to pull him away, but I shoot him at a point in which he is very much within my range, has passed through that curtain, and I know that he is coming upstairs, and that is when I shoot." App. 130-131.
Kansas contends that reaching a federal constitutional question may not be necessary because Cheever argued in opposing certiorari that the scope of Welner's testimony violated state evidentiary rules. Reply Brief 4-5. We agree with the State that the impact of Kansas evidentiary rules is a matter best left to the state courts to decide on remand. We do observe, however, that while our holding today suggests a constitutional ceiling on the scope of expert testimony that the prosecution may introduce in rebuttal, States (and Congress) remain free to impose additional limitations on the scope of such rebuttal evidence in state and federal trials.
* * * | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue of the Court's decision. Determine the issue of the case on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. | What is the issue of the decision? | [
"involuntary confession",
"habeas corpus",
"plea bargaining: the constitutionality of and/or the circumstances of its exercise",
"retroactivity (of newly announced or newly enacted constitutional or statutory rights)",
"search and seizure (other than as pertains to vehicles or Crime Control Act)",
"search and seizure, vehicles",
"search and seizure, Crime Control Act",
"contempt of court or congress",
"self-incrimination (other than as pertains to Miranda or immunity from prosecution)",
"Miranda warnings",
"self-incrimination, immunity from prosecution",
"right to counsel (cf. indigents appointment of counsel or inadequate representation)",
"cruel and unusual punishment, death penalty (cf. extra legal jury influence, death penalty)",
"cruel and unusual punishment, non-death penalty (cf. liability, civil rights acts)",
"line-up",
"discovery and inspection (in the context of criminal litigation only, otherwise Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations)",
"double jeopardy",
"ex post facto (state)",
"extra-legal jury influences: miscellaneous",
"extra-legal jury influences: prejudicial statements or evidence",
"extra-legal jury influences: contact with jurors outside courtroom",
"extra-legal jury influences: jury instructions (not necessarily in criminal cases)",
"extra-legal jury influences: voir dire (not necessarily a criminal case)",
"extra-legal jury influences: prison garb or appearance",
"extra-legal jury influences: jurors and death penalty (cf. cruel and unusual punishment)",
"extra-legal jury influences: pretrial publicity",
"confrontation (right to confront accuser, call and cross-examine witnesses)",
"subconstitutional fair procedure: confession of error",
"subconstitutional fair procedure: conspiracy (cf. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: conspiracy)",
"subconstitutional fair procedure: entrapment",
"subconstitutional fair procedure: exhaustion of remedies",
"subconstitutional fair procedure: fugitive from justice",
"subconstitutional fair procedure: presentation, admissibility, or sufficiency of evidence (not necessarily a criminal case)",
"subconstitutional fair procedure: stay of execution",
"subconstitutional fair procedure: timeliness",
"subconstitutional fair procedure: miscellaneous",
"Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: assault",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: bank robbery",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: conspiracy (cf. subconstitutional fair procedure: conspiracy)",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: escape from custody",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: false statements (cf. statutory construction of criminal laws: perjury)",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: financial (other than in fraud or internal revenue)",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: firearms",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: fraud",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: gambling",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: Hobbs Act; i.e., 18 USC 1951",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: immigration (cf. immigration and naturalization)",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: internal revenue (cf. Federal Taxation)",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: Mann Act and related statutes",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: narcotics includes regulation and prohibition of alcohol",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: obstruction of justice",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: perjury (other than as pertains to statutory construction of criminal laws: false statements)",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: Travel Act, 18 USC 1952",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: war crimes",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: sentencing guidelines",
"statutory construction of criminal laws: miscellaneous",
"jury trial (right to, as distinct from extra-legal jury influences)",
"speedy trial",
"miscellaneous criminal procedure (cf. due process, prisoners' rights, comity: criminal procedure)"
] | [
8
] | sc |
ASARCO INC. et al. v. KADISH et al.
No. 87-1661.
Argued February 27, 1989
Decided May 30, 1989
Kennedy, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part I, in which all participating Members joined, the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts II-A, II-B-2, II-C, III, and IV, in which Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part II-B-1, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens and Scalia, JJ., joined. Brennan, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ., joined, post, p. 633. Rehnquist, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Scalia, J., joined, -post, p. 634. O’Connor, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Daniel M. Gribbon argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were William H. Allen, Elizabeth V. Foote, Burton M. Apker, and Howard A. Twitty.
David S. Baron argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Kevin J. Lanigan.
Christopher J. Wright argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Marzulla, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Robert L. Klarquist, and J. Carol Williams
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc., d/b/a Phoenix Brick Yard, by Calvin H. Udall and Nancy L. Roiven; and for the Alaska Miners Association et al. by Ronald A. Zumbrun and Robin L. Rivett.
A brief of amici curiae was filed for the State of California et al. by John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General of California, Jan S. Stevens, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Mary L. Holt, Deputy Attorney General, joined by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Jim Jones of Idaho, Marc Racicot of Montana, Hubert H. Humphrey III óf Minnesota, Hal Stratton of New Mexico, Nicholas J. Spaeth of North Dakota, Robert Henry of Oklahoma, Roger A. Tellinghuisen of South Dakota, R. Paul Van Dam of Utah, Kenneth O. Eikenberry of Washington, and Joseph B. Meyer of Wyoming.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II-B-1.
The ultimate question for our decision is whether Arizona’s statute governing mineral leases on state lands is void because it does not conform with the federal laws that originally-granted those lands from the United States to Arizona. First, however, there is a difficult question about our own jurisdiction, a matter which touches on essential aspects of the proper relation between state and federal courts.
I
Various individual taxpayers and the Arizona Education Association, which represents approximately 20,000 public schoolteachers throughout the State, brought suit in Arizona state court, seeking a declaration that the state statute governing mineral leases on state lands, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §27-234(B) (Supp. 1988), is void, and also seeking appropriate injunctive relief. The state statute was challenged on the ground that it does not comply with the methods Congress required the State to follow before it could lease or sell the lands granted from the United States in the New Mexico-Arizona Enabling Act of 1910, 36 Stat. 557, and which are repeated in the Arizona Constitution. The suit was brought against the Arizona Land Department and others. ASARCO Incorporated and other current mineral lessees of state school lands were permitted to intervene as defendants. Eventually the trial court certified the case as a defendant class action under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The defendant class consisted of all present and future mineral lessees of state lands.
The trial court upheld the statute on cross-motions for summary judgment, and respondents (the original plaintiffs) appealed. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed over the dissent of one justice, ruling that the statute is “unconstitutional and invalid as it pertains to nonhydrocarbon mineral leases.” Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dept., 155 Ariz. 484, 498, 747 P. 2d 1183, 1197 (1987). It remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter summary judgment for respondents, to enter a judgment declaring § 27-234(B) invalid, and to consider what further relief, if any, might be appropriate.
Various of the mineral lessees filed a petition for certiorari, and we granted review. 488 U. S. 887 (1988).
Before we may undertake to consider whether the state legislation authorizing the leases is valid under federal law, we must rule on whether we have jurisdiction in the case. The parties and amici raise three jurisdictional issues, each of substance. We would be required, of course, to raise these matters on our own initiative if necessary, for our legitimate exercise of judicial power is confined both by statutes and by Article III of the Constitution. The issues here are: first, whether the judgment below is final; second, whether there is standing and an actual case or controversy that permits of a decision in federal court; and third, whether the decision below is unreviewable in this Court because it rests on an adequate and independent state ground.
A
The first jurisdictional question is whether the Arizona Supreme Court issued a final judgment in the case. It granted plaintiffs a declaratory judgment that the state law governing mineral leases is invalid, but then remanded the case for the trial court to determine “just what further relief is appropriate.” 155 Ariz., at 498, 747 P. 2d, at 1197. The United States, as amicus, asserts that the validity of existing leases remains at issue and that the trial court may yet decide to uphold the leases on the ground that they were made for “true value,” and thus are in “substantial conformity” with the provisions of the Enabling Act, §28, 36 Stat. 574-575, even though the leasing procedures did not comply with every specific requirement in the Act. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10-14 (hereafter Brief for United States).
If the assertion were correct, the judgment below would not yet be final within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257, and we would lack jurisdiction in the case. But it is not correct. Respondents originally sought a declaratory judgment that the state law is invalid, an injunction against further leases, and an accounting and payment of sums due under past leases; but they withdrew the last request on appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. See Brief for Appellant in Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dept., CV-86-0238-T, p. 6, n. 3, p. 40. Thus, on remand the trial court does not have before it any federal question whether past and current leases are valid because they were made in “substantial conformity” with the terms of the Enabling Act. And, of course, the trial court’s further actions cannot affect the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that §27-234(B) is invalid. Accordingly, the judgment below comes within two of the exceptions to the finality requirement that were set out in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975). Here “the federal issue is conclusive” and “the outcome of further proceedings preordained.” Id., at 479; see also Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U. S. 299 (1989). In addition, the “‘federal questions that could come here have been adjudicated by the State court,’” and the remaining issues, contrary to the United States’ suggestion, will not give rise to any further federal question. Cox, supra, at 480, quoting Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 127 (1945).
B
The second jurisdictional issue is of some theoretical import, though infrequent in occurrence. The question is whether, under federal standards, the case was nonjusticiable at its outset because the original plaintiffs lacked standing to sue; and if so, whether we may examine justiciability at this stage because the Arizona courts heard the case and proceeded to judgment, a judgment which causes concrete injury to the parties who seek now for the first time to invoke the authority of the federal courts in the case.
1
The United States contends that the case should be dismissed for lack of standing, since neither respondent taxpayers nor respondent teachers association, who were the original plaintiffs, would have satisfied the requirements for bringing suit in federal court at the outset. “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498 (1975). Although standing in its outer dimensions is a prudential concept to be shaped by the decisions of the courts as a matter of sound judicial policy and subject to the control of Congress, at its core it becomes a constitutional question; for standing in its most basic aspect can be one of the controlling elements in the definition of a case or controversy under Article III. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 471-476 (1982); id., at 490-494 (Brennan, J., dissenting). The standing of respondents if they had filed suit in federal court at the trial level may be resolved by applying well-settled principles of federal law.
The question whether taxpayers or citizens have a sufficient personal stake to challenge laws of general application where their own injury is not distinct from that suffered in general by other taxpayers or citizens covers old and familiar ground. As an ordinary matter, suits premised on federal taxpayer status are not cognizable in the federal courts because a taxpayer’s “interest in the moneys of the Treasury ... is shared with millions of others, is comparatively minute and indeterminable; and the effect upon future taxation, of any payments out of the funds, so remote, fluctuating and uncertain, that no basis is afforded for [judicial intervention].” Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 487 (1923) (decided with Massachusetts v. Mellon).
We have indicated that the same conclusion may not hold for municipal taxpayers, if it has been shown that the “peculiar relation of the corporate taxpayer to the [municipal] corporation” makes the taxpayer’s interest in the application of municipal revenues “direct and immediate.” Frothingham, supra, at 486-487, citing Crampton v. Zabriskie, 101 U. S. 601, 609 (1880). Yet we have likened state taxpayers to federal taxpayers, and thus we have refused to confer standing upon a state taxpayer absent a showing of “direct injury,” pecuniary or otherwise. Doremus v. Board of Education of Hawthorne, 342 U. S. 429, 434 (1952).
No such showing has been made in this case, and respondent taxpayers do not allege any special circumstances or exceptions that would confer standing upon them. Instead, they have simply asserted that the Arizona statute governing mineral leases has “deprived the school trust funds of millions of dollars thereby resulting in unnecessarily higher taxes.” Complaint ¶ III. Even if the first part of that assertion were correct, however, it is pure speculation whether the lawsuit would result in any actual tax relief for respondents. If they were to prevail, it is conceivable that more money might be devoted to education; but since education in Arizona is not financed solely from the school trust fund, Tr. of Oral Arg. 8-10, the State might reduce its supplement from the general funds to provide for other programs. The possibility that taxpayers will receive any direct pecuniary relief from this lawsuit is “remote, fluctuating and uncertain,” as stated in Frothingham, supra, at 487, and consequently the claimed injury is not “likely to be redressed by a favorable decision,” Valley Forge, supra, at 472.
The same flaw defeats the claim that the teachers association would have had standing to bring this suit originally in federal court. The association and its members contend that the state law “imposes an adverse economic impact” on them. Complaint HIV. Yet even if invalidation of the state law would create increased revenue for the school trust funds in the near future, an issue much disputed here, the allegations of economic harm rest on the same hypothetical assumptions as do the taxpayer claims. If respondents prevailed and increased revenues from state leases were available, maybe taxes would be reduced, or maybe the State would reduce support from other sources so that the money available for schools would be unchanged. Even if the State were to devote more money to schools, it does not follow that there would be an increase in teacher salaries or benefits. These policy decisions might be made in different ways by the governing officials, depending on their perceptions of wise state fiscal policy and myriad other circumstances. Whether the association’s claims of economic injury would be redressed by a favorable decision in this case depends on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the courts and whose exercise of broad and legitimate discretion the courts cannot presume either to control or to predict. We have much less confidence in concluding that relief is likely to follow from a favorable decision here than we had in cases like Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737 (1984), and Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26 (1976), where standing was found to be lacking because the probable response of private individuals to explicit tax incentives was judged to be too uncertain to satisfy the redressability prong of federal standing requirements.
Petitioners also argue that the “likelihood” of a redressable injury is increased once it is recognized that the claims of the taxpayers and the teachers association rest upon independent contingencies. The implication is that the Court should cumulate the probabilities, in the event that plaintiffs prevail, of either the taxpayers receiving direct relief from the increased revenues or the teachers receiving indirect economic benefit from higher funding for schools. Reply Brief for Petitioners 14-15. This line of reasoning evokes two responses. First, it does not avoid the fundamental problem that the courts are unable to evaluate with any assurance the “likelihood” that decisions will be made a certain way by policymaking officials acting within their broad and legitimate discretion. Second, the doctrine of standing to sue is not a kind of gaming device that can be surmounted merely by aggregating the allegations of different kinds of plaintiffs, each of whom may have claims that are remote or speculative taken by themselves. Instead, the basic inquiry, for each party seeking to invoke the authority of the federal courts, Warth, supra, at 498-499, is whether that party alleges personal injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Valley Forge, 454 U. S., at 472.
When the allegations of economic injury are put to one side, the claims made by both the taxpayers and the teachers association reduce to something like the association’s contention that the state law undermines “the quality of education in Arizona.” Complaint ¶ IV. We cannot say with any certainty that this contention is even likely to be correct. The claims raised here, moreover, are the kind of generalized grievances brought by concerned citizens that we have consistently held are not cognizable in the federal courts. See Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 111-112 (1983); Valley Forge, supra, at 482-487; Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 736-740 (1972); see also Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208 (1974); United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166 (1974).
Our precedents demonstrate that a party may establish standing by raising claims of noneconomic injury, see, e. g., Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91 (1979); Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205 (1972); but claims of injury that are purely abstract, even if they might be understood to lead to “the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees,” Valley Forge, supra, at 485, do not provide the kind of particular, direct, and concrete injury that is necessary to confer standing to sue in the federal courts. Although the members of the teachers association might argue that they have a special interest in the quality of education in Arizona, such a special interest does not alone confer federal standing. Cf. Sierra Club, supra, at 739-740. The argument does not succeed in distinguishing the members in this regard from students, their parents, or various other citizens.
Our review discloses no basis on which to find that respondents would satisfy the requirements for federal standing articulated by our precedents. It follows that the suit would have been dismissed at the outset were the federal rule to apply.
2
But the state judiciary here chose a different path, as was their right, and took no account of federal standing rules in letting the case go to final judgment in the Arizona courts. That result properly follows from the allocation of authority in the federal system. We have recognized often that the constraints of Article III do not apply to state courts, and accordingly the state courts are not bound by the limitations of a case or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability even when they address issues of federal law, as when they are called upon to interpret the Constitution or, in this case, a federal statute. See, e. g., Pennell v. San Jose, 485 U. S. 1, 8 (1988); Lyons, supra, at 113; Doremus, 342 U. S., at 434; Secretary of State of Md. v. J. H. Munson Co., 467 U. S. 947, 971 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring); Bateman v. Arizona, 429 U. S. 1302, 1305 (1976) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers); cf. Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. v. Agnew, 300 U. S. 608, 612 (1937).
Although the state courts are not bound to adhere to federal standing requirements, they possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law. See 28 U. S. C. § 1738; Grubb v. Public Utilities Comm’n of Ohio, 281 U. S. 470 (1930). Indeed, inferior federal courts are not required to exist under Article III, and the Supremacy Clause explicitly states that “the Judges in every State shall be bound” by federal law. U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2.
The question now arises whether a judgment rendered by the state courts in these circumstances can support jurisdiction in this Court to review the case. At this juncture, petitioners allege a specific injury stemming from the state-court decree, a decree which rests on principles of federal law. Petitioners insist that, as a result of the state-court judgment, the case has taken on such definite shape that they are under a defined and specific legal obligation, one which causes them direct injury.
We agree. Although respondents would not have had standing to commence suit in federal court based on the allegations in the complaint, they are not the party attempting to invoke the federal judicial power. Instead it is petitioners, the defendants in the case and the losing parties below, who bring the case here and thus seek entry to the federal courts for the first time in the lawsuit. We determine that petitioners have standing to invoke the authority of a federal court and that this dispute now presents a justiciable case or controversy for resolution here.
Petitioners hold mineral leases that were granted under the state law the Arizona Supreme Court invalidated. Although no accounting of sums due under these leases remains at issue in this particular case, it is undisputed that the decision to be reviewed poses a serious and immediate threat to the continuing validity of those leases by virtue of its holding that they were granted under improper procedures and an invalid law. The state proceedings ended in a declaratory judgment adverse to petitioners, an adjudication of legal rights which constitutes the kind of injury cognizable in this Court on review from the state courts. See, e. g., Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U. S. 249, 261-265 (1933). Petitioners are faced with “actual or threatened injury” that is sufficiently “distinct and palpable” to support their standing to invoke the authority of a federal court. Worth, 422 U. S., at 500, 501.
Petitioners contend before us that the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision rests on an erroneous interpretation of federal statutes. They claim that the declaratory judgment sought and secured by respondents, along with the relief that may flow from that ruling, is invalid under federal law. If we were to agree with petitioners, our reversal of the decision below would remove its disabling effects upon them. In these circumstances, we conclude that petitioners meet each prong of the constitutional standing requirements. As the parties first invoking the authority of the federal courts, they have shown that they “personally ha[ve] suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the [other party]. . . and that the injury ‘fairly can be traced to the challenged action’ and ‘is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.’” Valley Forge, 454 U. S., at 472 (citations omitted). In addition, petitioners’ standing to invoke the authority of this Court is not affected by any of the prudential limitations that have been identified in prior cases. Id., at 474-475. Indeed, the United States appears to recognize the force of these points. See Brief for United States 20, n. 14 (“[I]n light of the decision below, [petitioners] may now have standing” to invoke the authority of a federal court).
We also conclude that “the record shows the existence of a genuine case or controversy essential to the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court.” Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U. S. 44, 46 (1943). These parties remain adverse, and “valuable legal rights . . . will be directly affected to a specific and substantial degree by the decision of the question of law.” Wallace, 288 U. S., at 262. We are not confronted, certainly, with parties “attempting to secure an abstract determination by the Court of the validity of a statute ... or a decision advising what the law would be on an uncertain or hypothetical state of facts,” ibid., as might be the case, for example, if petitioners were seeking review of an advisory opinion rendered through specific mechanisms for obtaining a hypothetical ruling from a state court or other state official. The proceedings here were judicial in nature, and resulted in a final judgment altering tangible legal rights. This proceeding constitutes a cognizable case or controversy. Cf. In re Summers, 325 U. S. 561, 568-569 (1945).
Although petitioners satisfy the requirements of federal standing and present an actual case or controversy for decision here, the United States contends that this showing is insufficient to support our jurisdiction. The Government suggests that the appropriate order is dismissal, and that petitioners are then free “to bring a declaratory judgment action in federal court” raising these same claims. Brief for United States 20, n. 14. Petitioners counter that if the Court finds it cannot review the judgment on the merits, the proper course is to vacate the judgment below and remand for appropriate further proceedings, Tr. of Oral Arg. 13-15, as we have done at least on some occasions when a case becomes moot while it is pending on review from a state court, see, e. g., DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312, 320 (1974). Neither disposition is appropriate here.
If we were to vacate the judgment below on the ground that respondents lacked federal standing when they brought suit initially, that disposition would render nugatory the entire proceedings in the state courts. The clear effect would be to impose federal standing requirements on the state courts whenever they adjudicate issues of federal law, if those judgments are to be conclusive on the parties. That result, however, would be contrary to established traditions and to our prior decisions recognizing that the state courts are not bound by Article III and yet have it within both their power and their proper role to render binding judgments on issues of federal law, subject only to review by this Court.
In addition, we doubt it would be a proper exercise of our authority to vacate the state court’s judgment in these circumstances. It would be an unacceptable paradox to exercise jurisdiction to confirm that we lack it and then to interfere with a State’s sovereign power by vacating a judgment rendered within its own proper authority. This case is not one committed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. We have no authority to grant a writ only to announce that, solely because we may not review a case, the state court lacked power to decide it in the first instance.
If we were merely to dismiss this case and leave the judgment below undisturbed, a different set of problems would ensue. Although the judgment of a state court on issues of federal law normally binds the parties in any future suit even if that suit is brought separately in federal court, we have occasionally cautioned that such a judgment may well not bind the parties if the state court’s conclusions about federal law were not subject to any federal review. See, e. g., Doremus, 342 U. S., at 434 (“[W]e cannot accept... as the basis for conclusive disposition of an issue of federal law without review, any procedure which does not constitute” a case or controversy); Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551, 557 (1940) (this Court is responsible for assuring “that state courts will not be the final arbiters of important issues under the federal constitution”); Fidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City v. Swope, 274 U. S. 123, 130-131 (1927) (proceeding in state court is res judicata if “the constitutional rights asserted, or which might have been asserted in that proceeding, could eventually have been reviewed here”). The predominant interest promoted by this apparent exception to normal preclusion doctrines is to assure that the binding application of federal law is uniform and ultimately subject to control by this Court. See Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U. S. 24, 42, n. 13 (1974) (this Court may review a declaratory judgment granted by a state court, for “any other conclusion would unnecessarily permit a state court of last resort, quite contrary to the intention of Congress in enacting 28 U. S. C. § 1257, to invalidate state legislation on federal constitutional grounds without any possibility of state officials who were adversely affected by the decision seeking review in this Court”).
Given the likelihood that dismissal in this case would defeat the normal preclusive effects of the state court’s judgment, however, the effect again would be to impose federal standing requirements on a state court that sought to render a binding decision on issues of federal law. It also would denigrate the authority of the state courts by creating a peculiar anomaly in the normal channels of appellate review. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine interprets 28 U. S. C. § 1257 as ordinarily barring direct review in the lower federal courts of a decision reached by the highest state court, for such authority is vested solely in this Court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462 (1983); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281, 296 (1970); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413, 415-416 (1923). The United States urges that the proper course for petitioners is to sue in federal trial court in order to readjudicate the very same issues that were determined in the state-court proceedings below. Brief for United States 20, n. 14. That action, in essence, would be an attempt to obtain direct review of the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in the lower federal courts, and would represent a partial inroad on Rooker-Feldman’s construction of 28 U. S. C. § 1257.
For these reasons, we believe it would be inappropriate to dismiss the case at this stage. That disposition would come at the cost of much disrespect to state-court proceedings and judgments. It also would require petitioners to commence a new action in federal court to vindicate their rights under federal law, even though right now they present us with a case or controversy that is justiciable under federal standards. Cf. Wallace, 288 U. S., at 262-263 (a justiciable controversy is not “any the less so because through a modified procedure appellant has been permitted to present it in the state courts”). Instead, we adopt the following rationale for our decision on this jurisdictional point: When a state court has issued a judgment in a case where plaintiffs in the original action had no standing to sue under the principles governing the federal courts, we may exercise our jurisdiction on certiorari if the judgment of the state court causes direct, specific, and concrete injury to the parties who petition for our review, where the requisites of a case or controversy are also met.
We are not unmindful of the paradox that would result if respondents (plaintiffs below) prevail on the merits, for then they will have succeeded in obtaining a federal determination here that would have been unavailable if the action had been filed initially in federal court. Nonetheless, although federal standing “often turns on the nature and source of the claim asserted,” it “in no way depends on the merits of the [claim].” Warih, 422 U. S., at 500. The rule we adopt is necessary in deference to the States and in response to the petitioning parties who seek this forum to redress a real and current injury stemming from the application of federal law.
We therefore conclude that we may properly decide this case. Petitioners meet the requirements for federal standing under Valley Forge. Because they are the parties first invoking the authority of the federal courts in this case, and an actual case or controversy is before the Court, there is no jurisdictional bar to review. In these circumstances, and having already granted review, we believe the proper course is not to dismiss the case or to vacate the judgment below, but to undertake review of the federal issues on their merits.
C
The last threshold procedural issue concerns the possibility that the decision below rested on an adequate and independent state ground that would defeat review of the federal issues by this Court. See, e. g., Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U. S. 207, 210 (1935). Here the state court mentioned the State Constitution several times in its opinion but otherwise relied exclusively on federal law, including an extended discussion of the applicable federal statutes and their legislative histories. 155 Ariz., at 486-487, 747 P. 2d, at 1185-1186. In its conclusion, however, the Arizona Supreme Court directed the trial court “to enter a judgment declaring A. R. S. § 27-234 unconstitutional and invalid as it pertains to nonhydrocarbon mineral leases.” Id., at 498, 747 P. 2d, at 1197.
We conclude that the opinion below is not based on an adequate and independent state ground. Its discussion focuses solely on the federal statutes, and the State Constitution is never mentioned on its own apart from the Enabling Act. The Arizona Supreme Court explicitly considered itself “bound to adopt the construction advanced by [plaintiffs]” based on the prior decisions of this Court, and described Article 10 of the Arizona Constitution as simply a “rescript” of §28 of the Enabling Act. Id., at 495-496, 747 P. 2d, at 1194-1195. In light of this description, the references to the Arizona Constitution simply reflect a holding which rests on the state court’s interpretation of federal law. Although the Arizona Supreme Court was free to rest its holding on the State Constitution as an independent ground, the decision below did not divorce the state constitutional issue from the questions of federal law. See Enterprise Irrigation Dist. v. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 164 (1917); see also 155 Ariz., at 495, 747 P. 2d, at 1194 (“The Enabling Act is the ‘fundamental and paramount law’ in Arizona,” quoting Murphy v. State, 65 Ariz. 338, 345, 181 P. 2d 336, 340 (1947)).
In sum, we do not lack jurisdiction to review the decision below.
Ill
The issue on the merits is whether Arizona may lease mineral lands granted from the United States without meeting the specific requirements imposed by federal statute. We begin with a more detailed review of the statutes in question.
In 1910, Congress passed the New Mexico-Arizona Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 557, which authorized the people of those Territories to form state governments. Among its other provisions, the Enabling Act granted Arizona certain lands within every township for the support of public schools. Congress provided, however, that the new State would hold those granted lands in trust and subject to the specific conditions set out in § 28 of the Act, 36 Stat. 574-575. Under the conditions, the granted lands could not be sold or leased except to the highest bidder at a public auction following notice by advertisements in two newspapers weekly for 10 weeks. Leases for a term of five years or less were exempt from the advertising requirement. Lands could not be sold or leased for less than the values set by an appraisal required by the statute. All proceeds derived from the lands would go to a permanent segregated fund, and interest, but not principal, was to be spent for support of public schools. Arizona incorporated those restrictions in its proposed constitution, Ariz. Const., Art. 10, and was admitted to the Union in 1912.
The grant of lands in the Enabling Act specifically excluded mineral lands, §§ 6, 24, 36 Stat. 561-562, 572, but this gave rise to uncertainty about what are known as “unknown” mineral lands, those lands on which minerals were not discovered until after the grant. In two subsequent decisions, this Court held that the exclusion applied only to lands known to be mineral at the time of the grant, and that unknown mineral lands were granted under the Act. Wyoming v. United States, 255 U. S. 489, 500-501 (1921); United States v. Sweet, 245 U. S. 563, 572-573 (1918). These holdings in turn spawned numerous disputes over whether lands were known to be mineral at the time they were granted from the Federal Government. See, e. g., Work v. Braffet, 276 U. S. 560, 561-563 (1928). Title to lands in many Western States was in doubt, and the issue became more difficult to prove as the years passed. Accordingly, in 1927 Congress passed the Jones Act, 44 Stat. 1026, a brief statute that extended the terms of the original grant of lands in the Western States to encompass mineral lands as well. Congress also has amended the Enabling Act twice, each time to clarify the procedures for leasing granted lands for specific purposes. See Act of June 5, 1936, ch. 517, 49 Stat. 1477; Act of June 2, 1951, 65 Stat. 51.
Arizona’s own law governing the leasing of state mineral lands, enacted in 1941, requires every such lease to “provide for payment to the state by the lessee of a royalty of five per cent of the net value of the minerals produced from the claim.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §27-234(B) (Supp. 1988). But it does not require those lands to be advertised or appraised before they are leased and does not require the lands to be leased at their full appraised value. The lands in question here were granted to Arizona either in 1910, by the terms of the Enabling Act itself, or in 1927, under the Jones Act.
The grant of all lands under the Enabling Act is conditioned, by the statute’s clear language, upon the specified requirements for leasing or selling those lands. The Act declares that “all lands hereby granted . : . shall be by the said State held in trust, to be disposed of in whole or in part only in the manner as herein provided, . . . and that the natural products and money proceeds of any of said lands shall be subject to the same trusts as the lands producing the same.” § 28, 36 Stat. 574, 575 (emphasis added). “Disposition of any of said lands, or of any money or thing of value directly or indirectly derived therefrom, ... in any manner contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed a breach of trust.” Any such disposition is expressly stated to be “null and void” unless “made in substantial conformity with the provisions of this Act.” Ibid. And, again, the requirements set forth in the Act apply to “[a]ll lands, leaseholds, timber, and other products of land.” Ibid.
Petitioners cite Neel v. Barker, 27 N. M. 605, 204 P. 205 (1922), as standing for the proposition that because mineral lands originally were exempted by Congress from the grant made in the Enabling Act, its provisions for the sale or lease of granted lands did not apply to those lands later determined to be mineral in nature. That proposition, never tested in a federal court, is flawed in two respects. First, in Wyoming v. United States, supra, decided the year before but not mentioned or discussed in Neel, this Court held that unknown mineral lands were within the grant made by Congress. Second, since those lands were granted to the States under the authority of the Enabling Act itself, they could not be re-, garded as unburdened by its mandatory conditions. In consequence, the New Mexico Supreme Court erred in concluding that because “Congress did not intend to grant to the state any mineral lands ... it follows that the state is not controlled nor restricted by said act in regard to leasing said lands for mineral purposes.” 27 N. M., at 611, 204 P., at 207. All the lands granted under the Act are granted subject to its conditions.
The lands granted under the Jones Act are subject to the same conditions. This very brief enactment was passed to address the continuing problems associated with the dual regime, under which the adjudication of title to lands would depend on whether they were known to be mineral at the time the Federal Government granted them. H. R. Rep. No. 1761, 69th Cong., 2d Sess., 2-3 (1927); S. Rep. No. 603, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 1-6 (1926). Indeed, its formal title was: “An Act Confirming in States and Territories title to lands granted by the United States in the aid of common or public schools.” 44 Stat. 1026. The Jones Act resolved the problem of the dual regime by simply “extending]” the prior grants of lands “to embrace numbered school sections mineral in character.” §1, 44 Stat. 1026. The statute explicitly stated that “the grant of numbered mineral sections under this Act shall be of the same effect as prior grants for the numbered non-mineral sections.” § 1(a), 44 Stat. 1026 (emphasis added).
Petitioners make two points about the proper reading of this statute. First, they argue that the “same effect” language was intended only to assure that the title to these lands passed and vested in the same manner and with the same validity as did the title to lands granted under the Enabling Act, but said nothing about the conditions upon which those lands were granted. Second, they argue that the language of § 1(b) of the Jones Act granted the States a broad authority to lease the mineral deposits in the newly granted lands “by the State as the State legislature may direct,” with “the proceeds of rentals and royalties therefrom to be utilized for the support or in aid of the common or public schools.” 44 Stat. 1026-1027. According to petitioners, therefore, the Jones Act did not impose the same restrictions on mineral lands as did the Enabling Act; on the contrary, it explicitly repudiated any such restrictions on the newly granted lands.
We do not agree with this reading of the Jones Act. First, the suggested interpretation of the “same effect” language would render that language redundant: The statute continues immediately with an additional clause that directly addresses the “vesting]” of “titles to such numbered mineral sections.” § 1(a), 44 Stat. 1026. Instead, we believe that the “same effect” language has independent meaning, and that it achieved Congress’ stated objective of “extend[ing]” the 1910 grants to encompass all mineral lands and of “[confirming” title to such lands in the States. 44 Stat. 1026.
Second, the language of § 1(b) does not undermine the conclusion that § 1(a) of the Jones Act extended the coverage of the Enabling Act’s express restrictions as well as of its grant of lands. Section 1(b) says that though the mineral lands may be sold, the rights to mine and remove the minerals themselves are reserved to the State and may only be leased. Such leases may be undertaken “as the State legislature may direct.” Petitioners would read § 1(b) as containing the sole dispositional restrictions on the newly granted lands, and would read the latter passage as a blanket authority for the States to lease minerals on whatever terms they wish to set, as long as the proceeds of those leases go to the schools.
This interpretation suffers from several defects. To begin with, it does not offer a comprehensive understanding of the statutory regime. Section 1(b) contains no dispositional restrictions on the sale or lease of the newly granted lands except for the provision that the mineral rights on those lands are reserved to the State. If the “same effect” language in § 1(a) does not extend the dispositional restrictions in the Enabling Act to the lands granted in the Jones Act, then those lands are subject to no dispositional restrictions at all, though their mineral rights would be reserved. This is inconsistent with the view that the lands granted under the Jones Act are part of the school trust. Similarly, if the “as the State legislature may direct” language is the blanket authority for which petitioners contend, it would allow minerals to be leased for little or no royalty, and thus would leave room for all the abuses that the establishment of a school trust was designed to prevent.
Perhaps the most fundamental defect of the interpretation urged by petitioners is that it would largely perpetuate the dual regime that Congress sought to eliminate by enacting the Jones Act. Under that interpretation, the restrictions in the Enabling Act would continue to apply to unknown mineral lands, but would not apply to known mineral lands. As a result, for example, some of the leases involved in this case might be proper, under the Jones Act, while others would be improper, under the Enabling Act, and the critical difference would rest on a determination, to be made at some future point, whether those lands were known to be mineral in 1910. This is surely not the resolution Congress intended when it passed this statute, and it is neither a sensible nor an appealing one.
In addition, the “as the State legislature may direct” language is not inconsistent with the express restrictions set forth in the Enabling Act. Given the preceding restrictions on the sale of minerals in § 1(b), Congress may have thought it necessary to emphasize that leases were subject to no such novel limitations; instead, the States retained all the authority given under the conditional grants made in the Enabling Act. We thus agree with the court below that this language is properly viewed as authorizing the States to regulate the methods by which mineral leases are made and to specify any additional terms in those leases that are thought necessary or desirable, as long as the leases comply with the dispositional requirements set forth in the Enabling Act. See 155 Ariz., at 491, 747 P. 2d, at 1190. But this language, in and of itself, does not dispense with those restrictions.
Both sides place a great deal of emphasis on the later amendments to the Enabling Act, which occurred in 1936 and 1951. We think that the language of the original grants of these lands to Arizona is the decisive basis for decision here, and that subsequent amendments are at best only illustrative of how a later Congress read the original terms of the statute. Congress could not, for instance, grant lands to a State on certain specific conditions and then later, after the conditions had been met and the lands vested, succeed in upsetting settled expectations through a belated effort to render those conditions more onerous. Congress could relax the conditions upon which lands had been granted previously, of course, but we see nothing in the later amendments here to suggest that it has done so. Instead, the later amendments are wholly consistent with the view that Congress granted these lands in 1910 and 1927 subject to the conditions discussed previously and has never removed those conditions.
In both the 1936 and the 1951 amendments, Congress reiterated the formulation that the lands could be leased for certain purposes as the state legislature “may direct,” Act of June 5, 1936, ch. 517, 49 Stat. 1477, and as it “may prescribe,” Act of June 2, 1951, 65 Stat. 52. But the former amendment did not alter the application of § 28 to “[a]ll lands . . . and other products of land,” which remained in a passage which directly followed the “as the State legislature may direct” language. And the latter amendment altered the application of § 28 in a manner that tends to confirm the interpretation adopted here: It expressly extinguished the advertising, bidding, and appraisal restrictions upon any leases of these lands “for the exploration, development, and production of oil, gas, and other hydrocarbon substances,” 65 Stat. 52, though not upon leases for other purposes, such as mineral leases. Thus the subsequent history of these statutes, to the extent it indicates anything of significance, merely confirms that the original restrictions upon the sale or lease of mineral lands contained in the Enabling Act and the Jones Act remain undiminished in force.
IV
“The Court’s concern for the integrity of the conditions imposed by the [Enabling Act] has long been evident.” Alamo Land & Cattle Co. v. Arizona, 424 U. S. 295, 302 (1976). We conclude that the sale or lease of mineral lands granted to the State of Arizona under these federal statutes must substantially conform to the mandatory requirements set out in the Enabling Act. The court below was correct in declaring Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 27-234(B) (Supp. 1988) invalid as to nonhydrocarbon mineral leases. The judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is
Affirmed.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Court’s treatment of cases that become moot on review from the lower federal courts, as distinct from those that become moot on review from state courts, is illuminating on this point. In the former situation, the settled disposition of a case that has become entirely moot is for this Court to “vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss.” United, States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39 (1950). The power to make that disposition is predicated on our “supervisory power over the judgments of the lower federal courts,” which “is a broad one.” Id., at 40. In the latter situation, on review of state judgments, the same disposition is not made. Traditionally, where the entire case had become moot, the Court vacated the judgment below and remanded for such further proceedings as the state court might deem appropriate, as in DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312 (1974), since the state courts, not bound by Article III, were free to dispose of the case in a variety of ways, including reinstatement of the judgment. More recently, however, the regular practice in the latter situation has been to dismiss the case and leave the judgment of the state court undisturbed, which evinces a proper recognition that in the absence of any live case or controversy, we lack jurisdiction and thus also the power to disturb the state court’s judgment. See, e. g., Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Corp. Comm’n of Kan., 481 U. S. 1044 (1987); Times-Picayune Pub. Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 420 U. S. 985 (1975).
None of the precedents cited by the parties, and none that we have found, is squarely on point. In Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U. S. 947 (1984), the original defendant brought an appeal to defend the constitutionality of a state statute declared unconstitutional by the state court, but the Court began by evaluating the standing of the original plaintiffs, as we do here, and found that they did meet the requirements for federal standing, which obviated any further inquiry. Id., at 954-959. The same is not true in this case. In Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U. S. 239 (1983), the Court found that the original plaintiff met the requirements imposed by Article III, and then refused to invoke the prudential limitation of jus tertii, at least in part so as to avoid any question of “leaving intact the state court’s judgment in favor of [the original plaintiff], the purportedly improper representative of the third party’s constitutional rights.” Id., at 243. In Doremus v. Board of Education of Hawthorne, 342 U. S. 429 (1952), an appeal brought from state court by a losing taxpayer plaintiff was dismissed, because in that instance the party seeking to invoke the authority of the federal courts was found to lack standing, as would be true of the taxpayer plaintiffs in this case as well. Id., at 432-435. Yet here petitioners are the injured parties who seek to invoke the authority of this Court, and they meet the federal standing requirements.
One possible distinction between mineral leases and the lease of lands for other purposes is that mineral rights can be difficult to appraise, which might make the Enabling Act’s provisions less helpful in this setting. But this Court recognized long ago that such rights are subject to valuation in condemnation proceedings, and that whatever the difficulties may be in making such appraisals with complete accuracy, it does not defeat the existence of a “market value” in mineral rights, and it does not suffice as a reason to depart from the ordinary requirements that the law imposes on such transactions. Montana R. Co. v. Warren, 137 U. S. 348, 352-353 (1890).
Under the reading of the Jones Act we adopt, there may still be traces of the dual regime, though they are minimized. For example, it might be argued that “the right to prospect for, mine, and remove” minerals on unknown mineral lands can be sold, whereas those same rights on known mineral lands cannot, since the Jones Act’s prohibition in this regard is limited to those lands in “the additional grant made by this Act.” § 1(b), 44 Stat. 1026. We need not decide in this case, however, whether that reading of the statute is fair or necessary.
In the wake of the enactment of the Jones Act in 1927, the experience of New Mexico is instructive as a contemporaneous reading of the statute. Concerned that the Act had undermined whatever basis there might have been for the decision in Neel v. Barker, 27 N. M. 605, 204 P. 205 (1922), the New Mexico government immediately petitioned Congress to authorize a state plebiscite to codify its holding as law. In response, Congress passed a joint resolution to that effect. Joint Resolution No. 7, ch. 28, 45 Stat. 58. The language of the resolution explicitly permitted New Mexico to waive the advertising, appraisal, and bidding requirements on all mineral leases. This explicit language was conspicuously absent from the Jones Act itself.
The decision in Lassen v. Arizona Highway Dept., 385 U. S. 458 (1967), has no bearing on the issues raised in this case. In Lassen, the Court held that Arizona was not obliged to follow the Enabling Act’s specific requirements when it condemned land for use in its highway program, seeing “no need to read the Act to impose these restrictions on transfers in which the abuses they were intended to prevent are not likely to occur, and in which the trust may in another and more effective fashion be assured full compensation.” Id., at 464. Unlike public condemnation proceedings, however, the private sales and leases at issue here are precisely the kinds of transactions addressed by the federal statutes. Ibid. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded. | What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"modify",
"remand",
"unusual disposition"
] | [
3
] | sc |
CHAPPELLE v. GREATER BATON ROUGE AIRPORT DISTRICT et al.
No. 76-352.
Argued April 25, 1977
Decided May 16, 1977
Herschel C. Adcock argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Joseph F. Keogh argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is reversed. Turner v. Fouche, 396 U. S. 346, 361-364 (1970). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the reason, if any, given by the court for granting the petition for certiorari. | What reason, if any, does the court give for granting the petition for certiorari? | [
"case did not arise on cert or cert not granted",
"federal court conflict",
"federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question",
"putative conflict",
"conflict between federal court and state court",
"state court conflict",
"federal court confusion or uncertainty",
"state court confusion or uncertainty",
"federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty",
"to resolve important or significant question",
"to resolve question presented",
"no reason given",
"other reason"
] | [
0
] | sc |
DASTAR CORP. v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP. et al.
No. 02-428.
Argued April 2, 2003
Decided June 2, 2003
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Breyer, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
David A. Gerber argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Stewart A. Baker, Bennett Evan Cooper, and David Nimmer.
Gregory G. Garre argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General McCollum, Deputy Solicitor General Clement, Anthony J Steinmeyer, and Mark S. Davies.
Dale M. Cendali argued the cause for respondents. With her on the briefs were Walter E. Dellinger, Pamela A. Harris, Jonathan D. Hacker, Jeremy Maltby, Pammela Quinn, and Gary D. Roberts.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the International Trademark Association by Bruce R. Ewing; and for Malla Pollack et al. by Ms. Pollack, pro se.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Association for Competitive Technology et al. by Paul Bender and Michael R. Klipper; and for the Directors Guild of America et al. by Rickard P. Bress.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the American Intellectual Property Law Association by William G. Barber, Louis T. Pirkey, and Ronald E. Myrick; for the American Library Association et al. by Jonathan Band and Peter Jaszi; and for Intellectual Property Law Professors by Tyler T. Ochoa.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this cáse, we are asked to decide whether § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a), prevents the unaccredited copying of a work, and if so, whether a court may double a profit award under § 1117(a), in order to deter future infringing conduct.
I
In 1948, three and a half years after the German surrender at Reims, General Dwight D. Eisenhower completed Crusade in Europe, his written account of the allied campaign in Europe during World War II. Doubleday published the book, registered it with the Copyright Office in 1948, and granted exclusive television rights to an affiliate of respondent Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (Fox). Fox, in turn, arranged for Time, Inc., to produce a television series, also called Crusade in Europe, based on the book, and Time assigned its copyright in the series to Fox. The television series, consisting of 26 episodes, was first broadcast in 1949. It combined a soundtrack based on a narration of the book with film footage from the United States Army, Navy, and Coast Guard, the British Ministry of Information and War Office, the National Film Board of Canada, and unidentified “Newsreel Pool Cameramen.’' In 1975, Doubleday renewed the copyright on the book as the “ ‘proprietor of copyright in a work made for hire.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 9a. Fox, however, did not renew the copyright on the Crusade television series, which expired in 1977, leaving the television series in the public domain.
In 1988, Fox reacquired the television rights in General Eisenhower’s book, including the exclusive right to distribute the Crusade television series on video and to sublicense others to do so. Respondents SFM Entertainment and New Line Home Video, Inc., in turn, acquired from Fox the exclusive rights to distribute Crusade on video. SFM obtained the negatives of the original television series, restored them, and repackaged the series on videotape; New Line distributed the videotapes.
Enter petitioner Dastar. In 1995, Dastar decided to expand its product line from music compact discs to videos. Anticipating renewed interest in World War II on the 50th anniversary of the war’s end, Dastar released a video set entitled World War II Campaigns in Europe. To make Campaigns, Dastar purchased eight beta cam tapes of the original version of the Crusade television series, which is in the public domain, copied them, and then edited the series. Dastar’s Campaigns series is slightly more than half as long as the original Crusade television series. Dastar substituted a new opening sequence, credit page, and final closing for those of the Crusade television series; inserted new chapter-title sequences and narrated chapter introductions; moved the “recap” in the Crusade television series to the beginning and retitled it as a “preview”; and removed references to and images of the book. Dastar created new packaging for its Campaigns series and (as already noted) a new title.
Dastar manufactured and sold the Campaigns video set as its own product. The advertising states: “Produced and Distributed by: Entertainment Distributing” (which is owned by Dastar), and makes no reference to the Crusade television series. Similarly, the screen credits state “DASTAR CORP presents” and “an ENTERTAINMENT DISTRIBUTING Production,” and list as executive producer, producer, and associate producer employees of Dastar. Supp. App. 2-3, 30. The Campaigns videos themselves also make no reference to the Crusade television series, New Line’s Crusade videotapes, or the book. Dastar sells its Campaigns videos to Sam’s Club, Costco, Best Buy, and other retailers and mail-order companies for $25 per set, substantially less than New Line’s video set.
In 1998, respondents Fox, SFM, and New Line brought this action alleging that Dastar’s sale of its Campaigns video set infringes Doubleday’s copyright in General Eisenhower’s book and, thus, their exclusive television rights in the book. Respondents later amended their complaint to add claims that Dastar’s sale of Campaigns “without proper credit” to the Crusade television series constitutes “reverse passing off” in violation of § 43(a) of the Lánham Act, 60 Stat. 441, 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a), and in violation of state unfair-competition law. App. to Pet. for Cert. 31a. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court found for respondents on all three counts, id., at 54a-55a, treating its resolution of the Lanham Act claim as controlling on the state-law unfair-competition claim because “the ultimate test under both is whether the public is likely to be deceived or confused,” id., at 54a. The court awarded Dastar’s profits to respondents and doubled them pursuant to §35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1117(a), to deter future infringing conduct by petitioner.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment for respondents on the Lanham Act claim, but reversed as to the copyright claim and remanded. 34 Fed. Appx. 312, 316 (2002). (It said nothing with regard to the state-law claim.) With respect to the Lanham Act claim, the Court of Appeals reasoned that “Dastar copied substantially the entire Crusade in Europe series created by Twentieth Century Fox, labeled the resulting product with a different name and marketed it without attribution to Fox[, and] therefore committed a ‘bodily appropriation’ of Fox’s series.” Id., at 314. It concluded that “Dastar’s ‘bodily appropriation’ of Fox’s original [television] series is sufficient to establish the reverse passing off.” Ibid. The court also affirmed the District Court’s award under the Lanham Act of twice Dastar’s profits. We granted certiorari. 537 U. S. 1099 (2003).
II
The Lanham Act was intended to make .“actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks,” and “to protect persons engaged in . . . commerce against unfair competition.” 15 U. S. C. § 1127. While much of the Lanham Act addresses the registration, use, and infringement of trademarks and related marks, § 43(a), 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a) is one of the few provisions that goes beyond trademark protection. As originally enacted, § 43(a) created a federal remedy against a person who used in commerce either “a false designation of origin, or any false description or representation” in connection with “any goods or services.” 60 Stat. 441. As the Second Circuit accurately observed with regard to the original enactment, however — and as remains true after the 1988 revision — § 43(a) “does not have boundless application as a remedy for unfair trade practices,” Alfred Dunhill, Ltd. v. Interstate Cigar Co., 499 F. 2d 232, 237 (1974). “[B]ecause of its inherently limited wording, § 43(a) can never be a federal ‘codification’ of the overall law of ‘unfair competition,’ ” 4 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition §27:7, p. 27-14 (4th ed. 2002) (McCarthy), but can apply only to certain unfair trade practices prohibited by its text.
Although a case can be made that a proper reading of § 43(a), as originally enacted, would treat the word “origin” ás referring only “to the geographic location in which the goods originated,” Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U. S. 763, 777 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), the Courts of Appeals considering the issue, beginning with the Sixth Circuit, unanimously concluded that it “does not merely refer to geographical origin, but also to origin of source or manufacture,” Federal-Mogul-Bower Bearings, Inc. v. Azoff, 313 F. 2d 405, 408 (1963), thereby creating a federal cause of action for traditional trademark infringement of unregistered marks. See 4 McCarthy §27:14; Two Pesos, supra, at 768. Moreover, every Circuit to consider the issue found § 43(a) broad enough to encompass reverse passing off. See, e.g., Williams v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 691 F. 2d 168, 172 (CA3 1982); Arrow United Indus., Inc. v. Hugh Richards, Inc., 678 F. 2d 410, 415 (CA2 1982); F. E. L. Publications, Ltd. v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 214 USPQ 409, 416 (CA7 1982); Smith v. Montoro, 648 F. 2d 602, 603 (CA9 1981); Bangor Punta Operations, Inc. v. Universal Marine Co., 543 F. 2d 1107, 1109 (CA5 1976). The Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988 made clear that § 43(a) covers origin of production as well as geographic origin. Its language is amply inclusive, moreover, of reverse passing off — if indeed it does not implicitly adopt the unanimous court-of-appeals jurisprudence on that subject. See, e.g., Alpo Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F. 2d 958, 963-964, n. 6 (CADC 1990) (Thomas, J.).
Thus, as it comes to us, the gravamen of respondents’ claim is that, in marketing and selling Campaigns as its own product without acknowledging its nearly wholesale reliance on the Crusade television series, Dastar has made a “false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which ... is likely to cause confusion... as to the origin... of his or her goods.” § 43(a). See, e.g., Brief for Respondents 8, 11. That claim would undoubtedly be sustained if Dastar had bought some of New Line’s Crusade videotapes and merely repackaged them as its own. Dastar’s alleged wrongdoing, however, is vastly different: It took a creative work in the public domain — the Crusade television series — copied it, made modifications (arguably minor), and produced its very own series of videotapes. If “origin” refers only to the manufacturer or producer of the physical “goods” that are made available to the public (in this case the videotapes), Dastar was the origin. If, however, “origin” includes the creator of the underlying work that Dastar copied, then someone else (perhaps Fox) was the origin of Dastar’s product. At bottom, we must decide what § 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act means by the “origin” of “goods.”
III
The dictionary definition of “origin” is “[t]he fact or process of coming into being from a source,” and “[t]hat from which anything primarily proceeds; source.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 1720-1721 (2d ed. 1949). And the dictionary definition of “goods” (as relevant here) is “[w]ares; merchandise.” Id., at 1079. We think the most natural understanding of the “origin” of “goods” — the source of wares — is the producer of the tangible product sold in the marketplace, in this case the physical Campaigns videotape sold by Dastar. The concept might be stretched (as it was under the original version of § 43(a)) to include not only the actual producer, but also the trademark owner who commissioned or assumed responsibility for (“stood behind”) production of the physical product. But as used in the Lanham Act, the phrase “origin of goods” is in our view incapable of connoting the person or entity that originated the ideas or communications that “goods” embody or contain. Such an extension would not only stretch the text, but it would be out of accord with the history and purpose of the Lanham Act and inconsistent with precedent.
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act prohibits actions like trademark infringement that deceive consumers and impair a producer’s goodwill. It forbids, for example, the Coca-Cola Company’s passing off its product as Pepsi-Cola or reverse passing off Pepsi-Cola as its product. But the brand-loyal consumer who prefers the drink that the Coca-Cola Company or PepsiCo sells, while he believes that that company produced (or at least stands behind the production of) that product, surely does not necessarily believe that that company was the “origin” of the drink in the sense that it was the very first to devise the formula. The consumer who buys a branded product does not automatically assume that the brand-name company is the same entity that came up with the idea for the product, or designed the product — and typically does not care whether it is. The words of the Lan-ham Act should not be stretched to cover matters that are typically of no consequence to purchasers.
It could be argued, perhaps, that the reality of purchaser concern is different for what might be called a communicative product — one that is valued not primarily for its physical qualities, such as a hammer, but for the intellectual content that it conveys, such as a book or, as here, a video. The purchaser of a novel is interested not merely, if at all, in the identity of the producer of the physical tome (the publisher), but also, and indeed primarily, in the identity of the creator of the story it conveys (the author). And the author, of course, has at least as much interest in avoiding passing off (or reverse passing off) of his creation as does the publisher. For such a communicative product (the argument goes) “origin of goods” in § 43(a) must be deemed to include not merely the producer of the physical item (the publishing house Far-rar, Straus and Giroux, or the video producer Bastar) but also the creator of the content that the physical item conveys (the author Tom Wolfe, or — assertedly—respondents).
The problem with this argument according special treatment to communicative products is that it causes the Lanham Act to conflict with the law of copyright, which addresses that subject specifically. The right to copy, and to copy without attribution, once a copyright has expired, like “the right to make [an article whose patent has expired]— including the right to make it in precisely the shape it carried when patented — passes to the public.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U. S. 225, 230 (1964); see also Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U. S. 111, 121-122 (1938). “In general, unless an intellectual property right such as a patent or copyright protects an item, it will be subject to copying.” TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U. S. 23, 29 (2001). The rights of a patentee or copyright holder are part of a “carefully crafted bargain,” Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U. S. 141, 150-151 (1989), under which, once the patent or copyright monopoly has expired, the public may use the invention or work at will and without attribution. Thus, in construing the Lanham Act, we have been “careful to caution against misuse or over-extension” of trademark and related protections into areas traditionally occupied by patent or copyright. TrafFix, 532 U. S., at 29. “The Lanham Act,” we have said, “does not exist to reward manufacturers for their innovation in creating a particular device; that is the purpose of the patent law and its period of exclusivity.” Id., at 34. Federal trademark law “has no necessary relation to invention or discovery,” Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 94 (1879), but rather, by preventing competitors from copying “a source-identifying mark,” “reduce[s] the customer’s costs of shopping and making purchasing decisions,” and “helps assure a producer that it (and not an imitating competitor) will reap the financial, reputation-related rewards associated with a desirable product,” Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U. S. 159, 163-164 (1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Assuming for the sake of argument that Dastar’s representation of itself as the “Producer” of its videos amounted to a representation that it originated the creative work conveyed by the videos, allowing a cause of action under § 43(a) for that representation would create a species of mutant copyright law that limits the public’s “federal right to 'copy and to use’” expired copyrights, Bonito Boats, supra, at 165.
When Congress has wished to create such an addition to the law of copyright, it has done so with much more specificity than the Lanham Act’s ambiguous use of “origin.” The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, § 603(a), 104 Stat. 5128, provides that the author of an artistic work “shall have the right ... to claim authorship of that work.” 17 U. S. C. § 106A(a)(l)(A). That express right of attribution is carefully limited and focused: It attaches only to specified “work[s] of visual art,” §101, is personal to the artist, §§ 106A(b) and (e), and endures only for “the life of the author,” § 106A(d)(l). Recognizing in § 43(a) a cause of action for misrepresentation of authorship of noncopyrighted works (visual or otherwise) would render these limitations superfluous. A statutory interpretation that renders another statute superfluous is of course to be avoided. E. g., Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 486 U. S. 825, 837, and n. 11 (1988).
Reading “origin” in § 43(a) to require attribution of un-copyrighted materials would pose serious practical problems. Without a copyrighted work as the basepoint, the word “origin” has no discernable limits. . A video of the MGM film Carmen Jones, after its copyright has expired, would presumably require attribution not just to MGM, but to Oscar Hammerstein II (who wrote the musical on which the film was based), to Georges Bizet (who wrote the opera on which the musical was based), and to Prosper Mérimée (who wrote the novel on which the opera was based). In many cases, figuring out who is in thé line of “origin” would be no simple task. Indeed, in the present case it is far from clear that respondents have that status. Neither SFM nor New Line had anything to do with the production of the Crusade television series — they merely were licensed to distribute the video version. While Fox might have a claim to being in the line of origin, its involvement with the creation of the television series was limited at best. Time, Inc., was the principal, if not the exclusive, creator, albeit under arrangement with Fox. And of course it was neither Fox nor Time, Inc., that shot the film used in the Crusade television series. Rather, that footage came from the United States Army, Navy, and Coast Guard, the British Ministry of Information and War Office, the National Film Board of Canada, and unidentified “Newsreel Pool Cameramen.” If anyone has a claim to being the original creator of the material used in both the Crusade television series and the Campaigns videotapes, it would be those groups, rather than Fox. We do not think the Lanham Act requires this search for the source of the Nile and all its tributaries.
Another practical difficulty of adopting a special definition of “origin” for communicative products is that it places the manufacturers of those products in a difficult position. On the one hand, they would face Lanham Act liability for failing to credit the creator of a work on which their lawful copies are based; and on the other hand they could face Lan-ham Act liability for crediting the creator if that should be regarded as implying the creator’s “sponsorship or approval” of the copy, 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). In this case, for example, if Dastar had simply “copied [the television series] as Crusade in Europe and sold it as Crusade in Europe,” without changing the title or packaging (including the original credits to Fox), it is hard to have confidence in respondents’ assurance that they “would not be here on a Lanham Act cause of action,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 35.
Finally, reading § 43(a) of the Lanham Act as creating a cause of action for, in effect, plagiarism — the use of otherwise unprotected works and inventions without attribution — would be hard to reconcile with our previous decisions. For example, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U. S. 205 (2000), we considered whether product-design trade dress can ever be inherently distinctive. Wal-Mart produced “knockoffs” of children’s clothes designed and manufactured by Samara Brothers, containing only “minor modifications” of the original designs. Id., at 208. We concluded that the designs could not be protected under § 43(a) without a showing that they had acquired “secondary meaning,” id., at 214, so that they “‘identify the source of the product rather than the product itself,’ ” id., at 211 (quoting Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U. S. 844, 851, n. 11 (1982)). This carefully considered limitation would be entirely pointless if the “original” producer could turn around and pursue a reverse-passing-off claim under exactly the same provision of the Lanham Act. Samara would merely have had to argue that it was the “origin” of the designs that Wal-Mart was selling as its own line. It was not, because “origin of goods” in the Lanham Act referred to the producer of the clothes, and not the producer of the (potentially) copyrightable or patentable designs that the clothes embodied.
Similarly under respondents’ theory, the “origin of goods” provision of § 43(a) would have supported the suit that we rejected in Bonito Boats, 489 U. S. 141, where the defendants had used molds to duplicate the plaintiff’s unpatented boat hulls (apparently without crediting the plaintiff). And it would have supported the suit we rejected in TrafFix, 532 U.S. 23: The plaintiff, whose patents on flexible road signs had expired, and who could not prevail on a trade-dress claim under § 43(a) because the features of the signs were functional, would have had a reverse-passing-off claim for unattributed copying of his design.
In sum, reading the phrase “origin of goods” in the Lan-ham Act in accordance with the Act’s common-law foundations (which were not designed to protect originality or creativity), and in light of the copyright and patent laws (which were), we conclude that the phrase refers to the producer of the tangible goods that are offered for sale, and not to the author of any idea, concept, or communication embodied in those goods. Cf. 17 U. S. C. § 202 (distinguishing between a copyrighted work and “any material object in which the work is embodied”). To hold otherwise would be akin to finding that § 43(a) created a species of perpetual patent and copyright, which Congress may not do. See Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U. S. 186, 208 (2003).
The creative talent of the sort that lay behind the Campaigns videos is not left without protection. The original film footage used in the Crusade television series could have been copyrighted, see 17 U. S. C. § 102(a)(6), as was copyrighted (as a compilation) the Crusade television series, even though it included material from the public domain, see § 103(a). Had Fox renewed the copyright in the Crusade television series, it would have had an easy claim of copyright infringement. And respondents’ contention that Campaigns infringes Doubleday’s copyright in General Eisenhower’s book is still a live question on remand. If, moreover, the producer of a video that substantially copied the Crusade series were, in advertising or promotion, to give purchasers the impression that the video was quite different from that series, then one or more of the respondents might have a cause of action — not for reverse passing off under the “confusion ... as to the origin” provision of § 43(a)(1)(A), but for misrepresentation under the “misrepresents the nature, characteristics [or] qualities” provision of § 43(a)(1)(B). For merely saying it is the producer of the video, however, no Lanham Act liability attaches to Dastar.
* * *
Because we conclude that Dastar was the “origin” of the products it sold as its own, respondents cannot prevail on their Lanham Act claim. We thus have no occasion to consider whether the Lanham Act permitted an award of double petitioner’s profits. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Passing off (or palming off, as it is sometimes called) occurs when a producer misrepresents his own goods or services as someone else’s. See, e. g., O. & W. Thum Co. v. Dickinson, 245 F. 609, 621 (CA6 1917). “Reverse passing off,” as its name implies, is the opposite: The producer misrepresents someone else’s goods or services as his own. See, e. g., Williams v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 691 F. 2d 168, 172 (CA3 1982).
As for the copyright claim, the Ninth Circuit held that the tax treatment General Eisenhower sought for his manuscript of the book created a triable issue as to whether he intended the book to be a work for hire, and thus as to whether Doubleday properly renewed the copyright in 1976. See 34 Fed. Appx., at 314. The copyright issue is still the subject of litigation, but is not before us. We express no opinion as to whether petitioner’s product would infringe a valid copyright in General Eisenhower's book.
In the original provision, the cause of action for false designation of origin was arguably “available only to a person doing business in the locality falsely indicated as that of origin,” 505 U. S., at 778, n. 3. As adopted in 1946, § 43(a) provided in full:
“Any person who shall affix, apply, or annex, or use in connection with any goods or services, or any container or containers for goods, a false designation of origin, or any false description or representation, including words or other symbols tending falsely to describe or represent the same, and shall cause such goods or services to enter into commerce, and any person who shall with knowledge of the falsity of such designation of origin or description or representation cause or procure the same to be transported or used in commerce or deliver the same to any carrier to be transported or used, shall be liable to a civil action by any person doing business in the locality falsely indicated as that of origin or the region in which said locality is situated, or by any person who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged by the use of any such false description or representation.” 60 Stat. 441.
Section 43(a) of the Lanharn Act now provides:
“Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
“(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
“(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,
“shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.” 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a)(1).
Under the 1946 version of the Act, § 43(a) was read as providing a cause of action for trademark infringement even where the trademark owner had not itself produced the goods sold under its mark, but had licensed others to sell under its name goods produced by them — the typical franchise arrangement. See, e. g., My Pie Int’l, Inc. v. Debould, Inc., 687 F. 2d 919 (CA7 1982). This stretching of the concept “origin of goods” is seemingly no longer needed: The 1988 amendments to § 43(a) now expressly prohibit the use of any “word, term, name, symbol, or device,” or “false or misleading description of fact” that is likely to cause confusion as to “affiliation, connection, or association ... with another person,” or as to “sponsorship, or approval” of goods. 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. If the case arose under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, note the source as "United States Supreme Court". If the case arose in a state court, note the source as "State Supreme Court", "State Appellate Court", or "State Trial Court". Do not code the name of the state. | What is the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims"
] | [
27
] | sc |
RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.
No. 95-1455.
Argued December 9, 1996
Decided May 12, 1997
Assistant Attorney General Patrick argued the cause for appellant in No. 95-1455. With him on the briefs were Acting Solicitor General Dellinger, Deputy Solicitor General Bender, Cornelia T. L. Pillará, David K. Flynn, and Steven H. Rosenbaum. John W. Borkowski argued the cause for appellants in No. 95-1508. With him on the briefs were Walter A. Smith, Jr., Patricia A. Brannan, Barbara R. Arn-wine, Thomas J. Henderson, Brenda Wright, and Samuel L. Walters.
Michael A. Carvin argued the cause for appellee Bossier Parish School Board in both cases. With him on the brief were David H. Thompson, James J. Thornton, and Michael P. McDonald.
Together with No. 95-1508, Price et al. v. Bossier Parish School Board et al., also.on appeal from the same eourt.
Laughlin McDonald, Neil Bradley, Steven R. Shapiro, Elaine R. Jones, Norman J. Chachkin, and Jacqueline Berrien filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
Sharon L. Broivne and Deborah J. La Fetra filed a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Today we clarify the relationship between §2 and §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1973, 1973c. Specifically, we decide two questions: (i) whether preclearance must be denied under §5 whenever a covered jurisdiction’s new voting “standard, practice, or procedure” violates § 2; and (ii) whether evidence that a new “standard, practice, or procedure” has a dilutive impact is always irrelevant to the inquiry whether the covered jurisdiction acted with “the purpose ... of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color” under § 5. We answer both in the negative.
I — I
Appellee Bossier Parish School Board (Board) is a jurisdiction subject to the preclearance requirements of §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, and must therefore obtain the approval of either the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing any changes to a voting “qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure.” The Board has 12 members who are elected from single-member districts by majority vote to serve 4-year terms. When the 1990 census revealed wide population disparities among its districts, see App. to Juris. Statement 93a (Stipulations of Fact and Law ¶ 82), the Board decided to redraw the districts to equalize the population distribution.
During this process, the Board considered two redistricting plans. It considered, and initially rejected, the redistricting plan that had been recently adopted by the Bossier Parish Police Jury, the parish’s primary governing body (the Jury plan), to govern its own elections. Just months before, the Attorney General had precleared the Jury plan, which also contained 12 districts. Id., at 88a (Stipulations ¶ 68). None of the 12 districts in the Board’s existing plan or in the Jury plan contained a majority of black residents. Id., at 93a (Stipulations ¶82) (under 1990 population statistics in the Board’s existing districts, the three districts with highest black concentrations contain' 46.63%, 43.79%, and 30.13% black residents, respectively); id., at 85a (Stipulations ¶ 59) (population statistics for the Jury plan, with none of the plan’s 12 districts containing a black majority). Because the Board’s adoption of the Jury plan would have maintained the status quo regarding the number of black-majority districts, the parties stipulated that the Jury plan was not “retrogressive.” Id., at 141a (Stipulations ¶ 252) (“The . . . plan is not retrogressive to minority voting strength compared to the existing benchmark plan . . .”). Appellant George Price, president of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), presented the Board with a second option — a plan that created two districts each containing not only a majority of black residents, but a majority of voting-age black residents. Id., at 98a (Stipulations ¶ 98). Over vocal opposition from local residents, black and white alike, the Board voted to adopt the Jury plan as its own, reasoning that the Jury plan would almost certainly be precleared again and that the NAACP plan would require the Board to split 46 electoral precincts.
But the Board’s hopes for rapid preclearance were dashed when the Attorney General interposed a formal objection to the Board’s plan on the basis of “new information” not available when the Justice Department had precleared the plan for the Police Jury — namely, the NAACP’s plan, which demonstrated that “black residents are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact so as to constitute a majority in two single-member districts.” Id., at 155a-156a (Attorney General’s August 30, 1993, objection letter). The objection letter asserted that the Board’s plan violated § 2 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1973, because it “unnecessarily limit[ed] the opportunity for minority voters to elect their candidates of choice,” App. to Juris. Statement, at 156a, as compared to the new alternative. Relying on 28 CFR § 51.55(b)(2) (1996), which provides that the Attorney General shall withhold pre-clearance where “necessary to prevent a clear violation of amended Section 2 [42 U. S. C. § 1973],” the Attorney General concluded that the Board’s redistricting plan warranted a denial of preclearance under § 5. App. to Juris. Statement 157a. The Attorney General declined to reconsider the decision. Ibid.
The Board then filed this action seeking preclearance under § 5 in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Appellant Price and others intervened as defendants. The three-judge panel granted the Board’s request for preclearance, over the dissent of one judge. 907 F. Supp. 434, 437 (1995). The District Court squarely rejected the appellants’ contention that a voting change’s alleged failure to satisfy § 2 constituted an independent reason to deny preclearance under § 5: “We hold, as has every court that has considered the question, that a political subdivision that does not violate either the ‘effect’ or the ‘purpose’ prong of section 5 cannot be denied preclearance because of an alleged section 2 violation.” Id., at 440-441. Given this holding, the District Court quite properly expressed no opinion on whether the Jury plan in fact violated §2, and its refusal to reach out and decide the issue in dicta does not require us, as Justice Stevens insists, to “assume that the record discloses a ‘clear violation’ of § 2.” See post, at 499 (opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part). That issue has yet to be decided by any court. The District Court did, however, reject appellants’ related argument that a court “must still consider evidence of a section 2 violation as evidence of discriminatory purpose under section 5.” Id., at 445. We noted probable jurisdiction on June 3, 1996. 517 U. S. 1232.
II
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act), 42 U. S. C. § 1973 et seq., was enacted by Congress in 1964 to “attac[k] the blight of voting discrimination” across the Nation. S. Rep. No. 97-417, 2d Sess., p. 4 (1982); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 308 (1966). Two of the weapons in the Federal Government’s formidable arsenal are §5 and §2 of the Act. Although we have consistently understood these sections to combat different evils and, accordingly, to impose very different duties upon the States, see Holder v. Hall, 612 U. S. 874, 883 (1994) (plurality opinion) (noting how the two sections “differ in structure, purpose, and application”), appellants nevertheless ask us to hold that a violation of § 2 is an independent reason to deny preclearance under § 5. Unlike Justice Stevens, post, at 502-503, and n. 5 (opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part), we entertain little doubt that the Department of Justice or other litigants would “routinely” attempt to avail themselves of this new reason for denying preelearance, so that recognizing § 2 violations as a basis for denying § 5 preclearance would inevitably make compliance with §5 contingent upon compliance with §2. Doing so would, for all intents and purposes, replace the standards for § 5 with those for § 2. Because this would contradict our longstanding interpretation of these two sections of the Act, we reject appellants’ position.
Section 5, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, was enacted as
“a response to a common practice in some jurisdictions of staying one step ahead of the federal courts by passing new discriminatory voting laws as soon as the old ones had been struck down. . . . Congress therefore decided, as the Supreme Court held it could, ‘to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victim,’ by ‘freezing election procedures in the covered areas unless the changes can be shown to be nondiscriminatory.’” Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 140 (1976) (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 94-196, pp. 57-58 (1970)).
In light of this limited purpose, §5 applies only to certain States and their political subdivisions. Such a covered jurisdiction may not implement any change in a voting “qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure” unless it first obtains either administrative preclearance of that change from the Attorney General or judicial preclearance from the District Court for the District of Columbia. 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. To obtain judicial preclearance, the jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” Ibid.; City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 183, n. 18 (1980) (covered jurisdiction bears burden of proof). Because §5 focuses on “freezing] election procedures,” a plan has an impermissible “effect” under §5 only if it “would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” Beer, supra, at 141.
Retrogression, by definition, requires a comparison of a jurisdiction’s new voting plan with its existing plan. See Holder, supra, at 883 (plurality opinion) (“Under §5, then, the proposed voting practice is measured against the existing voting practice to determine whether retrogression would result from the proposed change”). It also necessarily implies that the jurisdiction’s- existing plan is the benchmark against which the “effect” of voting changes is measured. In Beer, for example, we concluded that the city of New Orleans’ reapportionment of its council districts, which created one district with a majority of voting-age blacks where before there had been none, had no discriminatory “effect.” 425 U. S., at 141-142 (“It is thus apparent that a legislative reapportionment that enhances the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise can hardly have the ‘effect’ of diluting or abridging the right to vote on account of race within the meaning of § 5”). Likewise, in City of Lockhart v. United States, 460 U. S. 125 (1983), we found that the city’s new charter had no retrogressive “effect” even though it maintained the city’s prior practice of electing its council members at-large from numbered posts, and instituted a new practice of electing two of the city’s four council members every year (instead of electing all the council members every two years). While each practice could “have a discriminatory effect under some circumstances,” id., at 135, the fact remained that “[s]ince the new plan did not increase the degree of discrimination against [the city’s Mexican-American population], it was entitled to § 5 preclearance [because it was not retrogressive],” id., at 134 (emphasis added).
Section 2, on the other hand, was designed as a means of eradicating voting practices that “minimize or cancel out the voting strength and political effectiveness of minority groups,” S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 28. Under this broader mandate, § 2 bars all States and their political subdivisions from maintaining any voting “standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right ... to vote on account of race or color.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(a). A voting practice is impermissibly dilutive within the meaning of §2
“if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by [members of a class defined by race or color] in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(b).
A plaintiff claiming vote dilution under § 2 must initially establish that: (i) “[the racial group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district”; (ii) the group is “politically cohesive”; and (iii) “the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 50-51 (1986); Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 25, 40 (1993). The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the totality of the circumstances supports a finding that the voting scheme is dilutive. Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U. S. 997, 1011 (1994); see Gingles, supra, at 44-45 (listing factors to be considered by a court in assessing the totality of the circumstances). Because the very concept of vote dilution implies — and, indeed,, necessitates — the existence of an “undiluted” practice against which the fact of dilution may be measured, a § 2 plaintiff must also postulate a reasonable alternative voting practice to serve as the benchmark “undiluted” voting practice. Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S., at 881 (plurality opinion); id., at 950-951 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
Appellants contend that preclearance must be denied under § 5 whenever a covered jurisdiction's redistricting plan violates § 2. The upshot of this position is to shift the focus of § 5 from nonretrogression to vote dilution, and to change the §5 benchmark from a jurisdiction’s existing plan to a hypothetical, undiluted plan.
But §5, we have held, is designed to combat only those effects that are retrogressive. See supra, at 477-479. To adopt appellants’ position, we would have to call into question more than 20 years of precedent interpreting § 5. See, e. g., Beer, supra; City of Lockhart, supra. This we decline to do. Section 5 already imposes upon a covered jurisdiction the difficult burden of proving the absence of discriminatory purpose and effect. See, e. g., Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 219 (1960) (“[A]s a practical matter it is never easy to prove a negative”). To require a jurisdiction to litigate whether its proposed redistricting plan also has a dilutive “result” before it can implement that plan — even if the Attorney General bears the burden of proving that “result” — is to increase further the serious federalism costs already implicated by § 5. See Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 926 (1995) (noting the “federalism costs exacted by § 5 preclearance”).
Appellants nevertheless contend that we should adopt' their reading of § 5 because it is supported by our decision in Beer, by the Attorney General’s regulations, and by considerations of public policy. In Beer, we held that § 5 prohibited only retrogressive effects and further observed that “an ameliorative new legislative apportionment cannot violate § 5 unless the new apportionment itself so discriminates on the basis of race or color as to violate the Constitution.” 425 U. S., at 141. Although there had been no allegation that the redistricting plan in Beer “so . . . discriminate^] on the basis of race or color as to be unconstitutional,” we cited in dicta a few cases to illustrate when a redistricting plan might be found to be constitutionally offensive. Id., at 142, n. 14. Among them was our decision in White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755 (1978), in which we sustained a vote dilution challenge, brought under the Equal Protection Clause, to the use of multimember election districts in two Texas counties. Appellants argue that “[bjecause vote dilution standards under the Constitution and Section 2 were generally coextensive at the time Beer was decided, Beer’s discussion meant that practices that violated Section 2 would not be entitled to preclearance under Section 5.” Brief for Federal Appellant 36-37.
Even assuming, arguendo, that appellants’ argument had some support in 1976, it is no longer valid today because the applicable statutory and constitutional standards have changed. Since 1980, a plaintiff bringing a constitutional vote dilution challenge, whether under the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment, has been required to establish that the State or political subdivision acted with a discriminatory purpose. See Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 62 (1980) (plurality opinion) (“Our decisions . . . have made clear that action by a State that is racially neutral on its face violates the Fifteenth Amendment only if motivated by a discriminatory purpose”); id., at 66 (“[O]nly if there is purposeful discrimination can there be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”); see also Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 265 (1977) (“Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause”). When Congress amended §2 in 1982, it clearly expressed its desire that § 2 not have an intent component, see S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 2 (“Th[e 1982] amendment is designed to make clear that proof of discriminatory intent is not required to establish a violation of Section 2”). Because now the Constitution requires a showing of intent that § 2 does not, a violation of § 2 is no longer a fortiori a violation of the Constitution. Congress itself has acknowledged this fact. See id., at 39 (“The Voting Rights Act is the best example of Congress’ power to enact implementing legislation that goes beyond the direct prohibitions of the Constitution itself”).
Justice Stevens argues that the subsequent divergence of constitutional and statutory standards is of no moment because, in his view, we “did not [in Beer] purport to distinguish between challenges .brought under the Constitution and those brought under the [Voting Rights] statute.” Post, at 504 (opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part). Our citation to White, he posits, incorporated White’s standard into our exception for nonretrogressive apportionments that violate §5, whether or not that standard continued to coincide with the constitutional standard. In essence, Justice Stevens reads Beer as creating an exception for non-retrogressive apportionments that so discriminate on the basis of race or color as to violate any federal law that happens to coincide with what would have amounted to a constitutional violation in 1976. But this reading flatly contradicts the plain language of the exception we recognized, which applies solely to apportionments that “so discriminate] on the basis of race or color as to violate the Constitution.” Beer, supra, at 141 (emphasis added). We cited White, not for itself, but because it embodied the current constitutional standard for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. See also 425 U. S., at 143, n. 14 (noting that New Orleans’ plan did “not remotely approach a violation of the constitutional stándards enunciated in” White and other cited cases (emphasis added)). When White ceased to represent the current understanding of the Constitution, a violation of its standard — even though that standard was later incorporated in § 2 — no longer constituted grounds for denial of preclearance under Beer.
Appellants’ next claim is that we must defer to the Attorney General’s regulations interpreting the Act, one of which states:
“In those instances in which the Attorney General concludes that, as proposed, the submitted change is free of discriminatory purpose and retrogressive effect, but also concludes that a bar to implementation of the change is necessary to prevent a clear violation of amended Section 2, the Attorney General shall withhold Section 5 preclearance.” 28 CFR § 51.55(b)(2) (1996).
Although we normally accord the Attorney General’s construction of the Act great deference, “we only do so if Congress has not expressed its intent with respect to the question, and then only if the administrative interpretation is reasonable.” Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U. S. 491, 508 (1992). Given our longstanding interpretation of § 5, see supra, at 477-479, 480-482 and this page, which Congress has declined to alter by amending the language of § 5, Arkansas Best Corp. v. Commissioner, 485 U. S. 212, 222, n. 7 (1988) (placing some weight on Congress’ failure to express disfavor with our 25-year interpretation of a tax statute), we believe Congress has made it sufficiently clear that a violation of § 2 is not grounds in and of itself for denying preclearance under § 5. That there may be some suggestion to the contrary in the Senate Report to the 1982 Voting Rights Act amendments, S. Rep. No. 97-417, supra, at 12, n. 31, does not change our view. With those amendments, Congress, among other things, renewed §5 but did so without changing its applicable standard. We doubt that Congress would depart from the settled interpretation of § 5 and impose a demonstrably greater burden on the jurisdictions covered by § 5, see supra, at 480, by dropping a footnote in a Senate Report instead of amending the statute itself. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 567 (1988) (“Quite obviously, reenacting precisely the same language would be a strange way to make a change”). See also City of Lockhart v. United States, 460 U. S. 125 (1983) (reaching its holding over Justice Marshall’s dissent, which raised the argument now advanced by appellants regarding this passage in the Senate Report).
Nor does the portion of the House Report cited by Justice Stevens unambiguously call for the incorporation of § 2 into § 5. That portion of the Report states:
“[M]any voting and election practices currently in effect are outside the scope of [§ 5]. .. because they were in existence before 1965. . . . Under the Voting Rights Act, whether a discriminatory practice or procedure is of recent origin affects only the mechanism that triggers relief, i. e., litigation [under §2] or preclearance [under §5].” H. R. Rep. No. 97-227, p. 28 (1981).
The obvious thrust of this passage is to establish that pre-1965 discriminatory practices are not free from scrutiny under the Act just because they need not be precleared under § 5: Such practices might still violate § 2. But to say that pre-1965 practices can be reached solely by § 2 is not to say that all post-1965 changes that might violate § 2 may be reached by both §2 and §5 or that “the substantive standards for § 2 and § 5 [are] the same,” see post, at 506 (opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part). Our ultimate conclusion is also not undercut by statements found in the “post-enactment legislative record,” see post, at 506, n. 9, given that “the views of a subsequent Congress form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier one.” United States v. Price, 361 U. S. 304, 313 (1960). We therefore decline to give these sources controlling weight.
Appellants’ final appeal is to notions of public policy. They assert that if the district court or Attorney General examined whether a covered jurisdiction’s redistricting plan violates § 2 at the same time as ruling on preclearance under § 5, there would be no need for two separate actions and judicial resources would be conserved. Appellants are undoubtedly correct that adopting their interpretation of § 5 would serve judicial economy in those cases where a § 2 challenge follows a § 5 proceeding. But this does not always happen, and the burden on judicial resources might actually increase if appellants’ position prevailed because § 2 litigation would effectively be incorporated into every § 5 proceeding.
Appellants lastly argue that preclearance is an equitable remedy, obtained through a declaratory judgment action in district court, see 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, or through the exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion, see 28 CFR § 51.52(a) (1996). A finding that a redistricting plan violates § 2 of the Act, they contend, is an equitable “defense,” on the basis of which a decisionmaker should, in the exercise of its equitable discretion, be free to deny preclearance. This argument, however, is an attempt to obtain through equity that which the law — i. e., the settled interpretation of § 5 — forbids. Because “it is well established that ‘[cjourts of equity can no more disregard statutory and constitutional requirements and provisions than can courts of law,’ ” INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U. S. 875, 883 (1988) (citing Hedges v. Dixon County, 150 U. S. 182, 192 (1893)), this argument must fail.
Of course, the Attorney General or a private plaintiff remains free to initiate a § 2 proceeding if either believes that a jurisdiction’s newly enacted voting “qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure” may violate that section. All we hold today is that preclearance under § 5 may not be denied on that basis alone.
III
Appellants next contend that evidence showing that a jurisdiction’s redistricting plan dilutes the voting power of minorities is at least relevant in a §5 proceeding because it tends to prove that the jurisdiction enacted its plan with a discriminatory “purpose.” The District Court, reasoning that “[t]he line [between §2 and §5] cannot be blurred by allowing a defendant to do indirectly what it cannot do directly,” 907 F. Supp., at 445, rejected this argument and held that it “will not permit section 2 evidence to prove discriminatory purpose under section 5,” ibid. Because we hold that some of this “§2 evidence” may be relevant to establish a jurisdiction’s “intent to retrogress” and cannot say with confidence that the District Court considered the evidence proffered to show that the Board’s reapportionment plan was dilutive, we vacate this aspect of the District Court’s holding and remand. In light of this conclusion, we leave open for another day the question whether the §5 purpose inquiry ever extends beyond the search for retrogressive intent. See Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U. S. 454, 465, n. 5 (1989) (declining to decide an issue that “is not necessary to our decision”). Reserving this question is particularly appropriate when, as in this suit, it was not squarely addressed by the decision below or in the parties’ briefs on appeal. See Brief for Federal Appellant 23; Brief for Appellant Price et al. 31-33, 34-35; Brief for Appellee 42-43. But in doing so, we do not, contrary to Justice Stevens’ view, see post, at 499 (opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part), necessarily assume that the Board enacted the Jury plan with some nonretrogressive, but nevertheless discriminatory, “purpose.” The existence of such a purpose, and its relevance to § 5, are issues to be decided on remand.
Although § 5 warrants a denial of preclearance if a covered jurisdiction’s voting change “ha[s] the purpose [or] . . . the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color,” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, we have consistently interpreted this language in light of the purpose underlying §5 — “to insure that no voting-procedure changes would be made that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities.” Beer, 425 U. S., at 141. Accordingly, we have adhered to the view that the only “effect” that violates § 5 is a retrogressive one. Ibid.; City of Lockhart, 460 U. S., at 134.
Evidence is “relevant” if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. Rule Evid. 401. As we observed in Arlington Heights, 429 U. S., at 266, the impact of an official action is often probative of why the action was taken in the first place since people usually intend the natural consequences of their actions. Thus, a jurisdiction that enacts a plan having a dilutive impact is more likely to have acted with a discriminatory intent to dilute minority voting strength than a jurisdiction whose plan has no such impact. A jurisdiction that acts with an intent to dilute minority voting strength is more likely to act with an intent to worsen the position of minority voters — i. e., an intent to retrogress — than a jurisdiction acting with no intent to dilute. The fact that a plan has a dilutive impact, therefore makes it “more probable” that the jurisdiction adopting that plan acted with an intent to retrogress than “it would be without the evidence.” To be sure, the link between dilutive impact and intent to retrogress is far from direct, but “the basic standard of relevance ... is a liberal one,” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579, 587 (1993), and one we think is met here.
That evidence of a plan’s dilutive impact may be relevant to the § 5 purpose inquiry does not, of course, mean that such evidence is dispositive of that inquiry. In fact, we have previously observed that a jurisdiction’s single decision to choose a redistricting plan that has a dilutive impact does not, without more, suffice to establish that the jurisdiction acted with a discriminatory purpose. Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899, 914, n. 6 (1996) (“[W]e doubt that a showing of discriminatory effect under §2, alone, could support a claim of discriminatory purpose under § 5”). This is true whether the jurisdiction chose the more dilutive plan because it better comported with its traditional districting principles, see Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S., at 922 (rejecting argument that a jurisdiction’s failure to adopt the plan with the greatest possible number of majority black districts establishes that it acted with a discriminatory purpose); Shaw, supra, at 912-913 (same), or if it chose the plan for no reason at all. Indeed, if a plan’s dilutive impact were dispositive, we would effectively incorporate §2 into §5, which is a result we find unsatisfactory no matter how it is packaged. See Part II, supra.
As our discussion illustrates, assessing a jurisdiction’s motivation in enacting voting changes is a complex task requiring a “sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence as may be available.” Arlington Heights, 429 U. S., at 266. In conducting this inquiry, courts should look to our decision in Arlington Heights for guidance. There, we set forth a framework for analyzing “whether invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor” in a government body’s decisionmaking. Ibid. In addition to serving as the framework for examining discriminatory purpose in cases brought under the Equal Protection Clause for over two decades, see, e. g., Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630, 644 (1993) (citing Arlington Heights standard in context of Equal Protection Clause challenge to racial gerrymander of districts); Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613, 618 (1982) (evaluating vote dilution claim under Equal Protection Clause using Arlington Heights test); Mobile, 446 U. S., at 70-74 (same), the Arlington Heights framework has also been used, at least in part, to evaluate purpose in our previous §5 cases. See Pleasant Grove v. United States, 479 U. S. 462, 469-470 (1987) (considering city’s history in rejecting annexation of black neighborhood and its departure from normal procedures when calculating costs of annexation alternatives); see also Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494, 516-517 (DC 1982), summarily aff’d, 459 U. S. 1166 (1983) (referring to Arlington Heights test); Port Arthur v. United States, 517 F. Supp. 987, 1019, aff’d, 459 U. S. 159 (1982) (same).
The “important starting point” for assessing discriminatory intent under Arlington Heights is “the impact of the official action whether it 'bears more heavily on one race than another.’ ” 429 U. S., at 266 (citing Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 242 (1976)). In a § 5 case, “impact” might include a plan’s retrogressive effect and, for the reasons discussed above, its dilutive impact. Other considerations relevant to the purpose inquiry include, among other things, “the historical background of the [jurisdiction’s] decision”; “[t]he specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision”; “[departures from the normal procedural sequence”; and “[t]he legislative or administrative history, especially . . . [any] contemporary statements by members of the decisionmaking body.” 429 U. S., at 266-268.
We are unable to determine from the District Court’s opinion in this action whether it deemed irrelevant all evidence of the dilutive impact of the redistricting plan adopted by the Board. At one point, the District Court correctly stated that “the adoption of one nonretrogressive plan rather than another nonretrogressive plan that contains more majority-black districts cannot by itself give rise to the inference of discriminatory intent.” 907 F. Supp., at 450 (emphasis added). This passage implies that the District Court believed that the existence of less dilutive options was at least relevant to, though not dispositive of, its purpose inquiry. While this language is consistent with our holding today, see supra, at 486-488, the District Court also declared that “we will not permit section 2 evidence to prove discriminatory purpose under section 5,” supra, at 486. With this statement, the District Court appears to endorse the notion that evidence of dilutive impact is irrelevant even to an inquiry into retrogressive intent, a notion we reject. See supra, at 486-488.
The Board contends that the District Court actually “presumed that white majority districts had [a dilutive] effect,” Brief for Appellee 35, and “cut directly to the dispositive question ‘started’ by the existence of [a dilutive] impact: did the Board have ‘legitimate, nondiscriminatory motives’ for adopting its plan[?]” Id., at 33. Even if the Board were correct, the District Court gave no indication that it was assuming the plan’s dilutive effect, and we hesitate to attribute to the District Court a rationale it might not have employed. Because we are not satisfied that the District Court considered evidence of the dilutive impact of the Board’s redistricting plan, we vacate this aspect of the District Court’s opinion. The District Court will have the opportunity to apply the Arlington Heights test on remand as well as to address appellants’ additional arguments that it erred in refusing to consider evidence that the Board was in violation of an ongoing injunction “to ‘remedy any remaining vestiges of [a] dual [school] system,”’ 907 F. Supp., at 449, n. 18.
* * *
The judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
It is so ordered. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence. | What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision? | [
"judicial review (national level)",
"judicial review (state level)",
"Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction",
"statutory construction",
"interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order",
"diversity jurisdiction",
"federal common law"
] | [
3
] | sc |
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA et al. v. ARKANSAS OAK FLOORING CO.
No. 227.
Argued January 23, 1956.
Decided April 23, 1956.
Crampton Harris argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were James I. McCain, Yelverton Cowherd and Alfred D. Treherne.
John L. Pitts argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Grove Stafford and Richard C. Keenan.
Solicitor General Sobeloff, Theophil C. Kammholz, David P. Findling, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come filed a brief for the National Labor Relations Board, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us is whether, in the case of an employer subject to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a state court may enjoin peaceful picketing of the employer’s premises, undertaken by its employees and their union for the purpose of obtaining recognition of that union as the employees’ bargaining representative, when the union holds cards authorizing such representation concededly signed by a majority of the employees eligible to be represented, but has filed none of the data or affidavits described in § 9 (f), (g) and (h) of that Act, as amended. For the reasons hereafter stated, our answer is in the negative.
In 1953, the respondent, Arkansas Oak Flooring Company, a Delaware corporation with its main office in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, owned and operated a sawmill and flooring plant in Alexandria, Louisiana. The company was there engaged in interstate commerce and subject to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. At the same time, District 50, United Mine Workers of America, here called the “union,” was an unincorporated labor organization which undertook to organize the company’s eligible employees at its Alexandria plant. The union, however, did not file with the Secretary of Labor any of the financial or organizational data described in § 9 (f) and (g) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, nor, with the National Labor Relations Board, any of the non-Communist affidavits described in § 9 (h) of that Act. It contended that the company, nevertheless, should recognize it as the collective-bargaining representative of the Alexandria plant employees because it was authorized by more than a majority of such employees to represent them.
Although for four years there had been no labor organization representing the plant employees, this union, by February 24,1954, held applications for membership from 174 of the 225 eligible employees. Such applicants had elected officers and stewards and had authorized the union organizer to request the company to recognize the union as their collective-bargaining representative. On February 24, the organizer, accordingly, presented that request to the assistant superintendent of the plant. The latter, in the absence of any higher officer of the company, replied that the union was not recognized either by the National Labor Relations Board or by him, and that, if negotiations were desired, the union organizer should call the company’s office at Pine Bluff.
On March 1, the petitioning employees struck for recognition of the union and set up a peaceful picket line of three employees. Two were placed in front of the plant and one at the side. They carried signs stating “This Plant is on Strike” or “We want Recognition, District 50 TJMWA.”
On March 2, respondent sought a restraining order and injunction in the Ninth Judicial District for the Parish of Rapides, Louisiana. That court promptly issued an order restraining the above-described picketing by 11 named employees, the union and its organizer. The order was obeyed but the strike continued. On March 12 and 15, evidence was introduced, including, by that date, 179 applications for membership in the union, each of which authorized the union to represent the signer in negotiations and in the making of agreements as to wages, hours and conditions of work. The parties to the proceeding stipulated that each of those applications was signed by an employee of respondent. In the face of that record, the court nevertheless converted its restraining order into a temporary injunction and the defendants, who are the petitioners herein, appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. While that appeal was pending, the trial court, on the same record, made its injunction permanent. Petitioners appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Louisiana and the two appeals were consolidated. There the permanent injunction was sustained, one judge concurring specially and another dissenting, in part, on an issue not material here. 227 La. 1109, 81 So. 2d 413.
The State Supreme Court’s ground for sustaining the injunction was that the union, which sought to be recognized, had failed to file with the Secretary of Labor the financial and other data required by § 9 (f) and (g), and had failed to file with the Labor Board the non-Communist affidavits required by §9 (h). The court held that the union, by failing to comply with § 9 (f), (g) and (h), had precluded its certification by the Board, and that, accordingly, neither the employees nor the union had a right to picket the plant to induce the company to recognize the noncomplying union. The court, agreeing with respondent’s theory, took the position that such recognition would be illegal and that picketing to secure it, therefore, was subject to restraint by a state court. Rehearing was denied.
Because of the significance of that decision in relation to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we granted certiorari and invited the Solicitor General to file a brief setting forth the views of the National Labor Relations Board. 350 U. S. 860. Such a brief was filed favoring a reversal.
There is no doubt that, if the union had filed the data and affidavits required by § 9 (f), (g) and (h), the complaint, under the circumstances of this case, would have had to be dismissed by the state court for lack of jurisdiction, and that, if an injunction were sought through the National Labor Relations Board, the request would have had to be denied on the merits. Under those circumstances, the Board would have had jurisdiction of the issue to the exclusion of the state court. Garner v. Team sters Union, 346 U. S. 485, and see Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468. In the absence of any bona fide dispute as to the existence of the required majority of eligible employees, the employer’s denial of recognition of the union would have violated § 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
The issue before us thus turns upon the effect of the union’s choice not to file the information and affidavits described in § 9 (f), (g) and (h). The state court misconceived that effect. The union’s failure to file was not a confession of guilt of anything. It was merely a choice not to make public certain information. The Act prescribes no fine or penalty, in the ordinary sense, for failure to file the specified data and affidavits. The Act does not even direct that they be filed. The nearest to such a direction in the Act is the statement, in § 9 (g), that it shall be “the obligation” of all labor organizations to file annual reports “bringing up to date the information required to be supplied in the initial filing by subsection (f) (A) of this section, and to file with the Secretary of Labor and furnish to its members annually financial reports in the form and manner prescribed in subsection (f)(B).” However, neither subsection (f)(A) nor (f) (B) of § 9 requires any initial filing to be made. Each merely describes what is required to be filed in the event that a labor organization elects to seek the advantages offered by subsection (f).
Congress seeks to induce labor organizations to file the described data and affidavits by making various benefits of the Act strictly contingent upon such filing. See New Jersey Carpet Mills, Inc., 92 N. L. R. B. 604, 610. In particular, Congress makes the services of the Labor Board available to labor organizations only upon their filing of the specified data and affidavits. By its noncompliance with § 9 (f), (g) and (h), a union does not exempt itself from other applicable provisions of the Act.
What, then, is the precise status of a labor organization that elects not to file some or all of the data or affidavits in question? It is significant that the effect of noncompliance is the same whether one or more of the filings are omitted. Accordingly, it simplifies the issue to assume a situation where a union has filed the non-Communist affidavits specified in § 9 (h), but has chosen not to disclose the information called for by § 9 (f) (A) (2) and (3) as to the salaries of its officers, or the manner in which they have been elected. There is no provision stating that, under those circumstances, the union may not represent an appropriate unit of employees, if a majority of those employees give it authority so to do. Likewise, there is no statement precluding their employer from voluntarily recognizing such a noncomplying union as their bargaining representative. Section 8(a)(5) declares it to be an unfair labor practice for an employer “to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9 (a).” (Emphasis supplied.) Section 9 (a), which deals expressly with employee representation, says nothing as to how the employees’ representative shall be chosen. See Lebanon Steel Foundry v. Labor Board, 76 U. S. App. D. C. 100, 103, 130 F. 2d 404, 407. It does not make it a condition that the representative shall have complied with § 9 (f), (g) or (h), or shall be certified by the Board, or even be eligible for such certification.
Likewise, § 7, which deals with the employees’ rights to self-organization and representation, makes no reference to any need that the employees’ chosen representative must have complied with § 9 (f), (g) or (h). Section 7 provides—
“Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8 (a)(3).” 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. § 157.
Subsections (f), (g) and (h) of § 9 merely describe advantages that may be gained by compliance with their conditions. The very specificity of the advantages to be gained and the express provision for the loss of these advantages imply that no consequences other than those so listed shall result from noncompliance.
The noncompliance of the union with § 9 (f), (g) and (h) in the instant case precludes any right of the union to seek certification of its status by the Labor Board. Such elimination of the Board does not, however, eliminate the applicability of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and does not settle the issue as to the right of the state court to enjoin the employees and their union from peacefully picketing the employer’s plant for the purpose of securing recognition.
The industrial relations between the company and its employees nonetheless affect interstate commerce and come within the field occupied by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Labor Board is but an agency through which Congress has authorized certain industrial relations to be supervised and enforced. The Act goes further. The instant employer, employees and union are controlled by its applicable provisions and all courts, state as well as federal, are bound by them.
Section 7 recognizes the right of the instant employees “to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing” and leaves open the manner of choosing such representatives when certification does not apply. The employees have exercised that right through the action of substantially more than a majority of them authorizing the instant union to represent them.
Section 9 (a) provides that representatives “designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: . . . .” That fits this situation precisely. It does not require the designated labor organization to disclose the salaries of its officers, or even to file non-Communist affidavits.
Under those sections and by virtue of the conceded majority designation of the union, the employer is obligated to recognize the designated union. Upon the employer’s refusal to do so, the union, because of its noncompliance with §9 (f), (g) and (h), cannot resort to the Labor Board. It can, however, take other lawful action such as that engaged in here.
The company can, if it so wishes, lawfully recognize the union as the employees’ representative. That being so, there is no reason why the employees, and their union under their authorization, may not, under § 13, strike, and, under § 7, peacefully picket the premises of their employer to induce it thus to recognize their chosen representative. See West Texas Utilities Co. v. Labor Board, 87 U. S. App. D. C. 179, 185, 184 F. 2d 233, 239, and the other cases cited in note 6, supra,
Such being the case, the state court is governed by the federal law which has been applied to industrial relations, like these, affecting interstate commerce and the state court erred in enjoining the peaceful picketing here practiced. A “State may not prohibit the exercise of rights which the federal Acts protect.” Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, 474, and see Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, 494.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, accordingly, is reversed and the case is remanded to it for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“Sec. 9. (a) Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: ....
“(f) No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question affecting commerce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organization under subsection (c) of this section, and no complaint shall be issued pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 10, unless such labor organization and any national or international labor organization of which such labor organization is an affiliate or constitutent unit (A) shall have prior thereto filed with the Secretary of Labor copies of its constitution and bylaws and a report, in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, showing—
“(1) the name of such labor organization and the address of its principal place of business;
“(2) the names, titles, and compensation and allowances of its three principal officers and of any of its other officers or agents whose aggregate compensation and allowances for the preceding year exceeded $5,000, and the amount of the compensation and allowances paid to each such officer or agent during such year;
“(3) the manner in which the officers and agents referred to in clause (2) were elected, appointed, or otherwise selected;
“(4) the initiation fee or fees which new members are required to pay on becoming members of such labor organization;
“(5) the regular dues or fees which members are required to pay in order to remain members in good standing of such labor organization;
“(6) a detailed statement of, or reference to provisions of its constitution and bylaws showing the procedure followed with respect to, (a) qualification for or restrictions on membership, (b) election of officers and stewards, (c) calling of regular and special meetings, (d) levying of assessments, (e) imposition of fines, (f) authorization for bargaining demands, (g) ratification of contract terms, (h) authorization for strikes, (i) authorization for disbursement of union funds, (j) audit of union financial transactions, (k) participation in insurance or other benefit plans, and (1) expulsion of members and the grounds therefor;
“and (B) can show that prior thereto it has—
“(1) filed with the Secretary of Labor, in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, a report showing all of (a) its receipts of any kind and the sources of such receipts, (b) its total assets and liabilities as of the end of its last fiscal year, (c) the disbursements made by it during such fiscal year, including the purposes for which made; and
“(2) furnished to all of the members of such labor organization copies of the financial report required by paragraph (1) hereof to be filed with the Secretary of Labor.
“(g) It shall be the obligation of all labor organizations to file annually with the Secretary of Labor, in such form as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe, reports bringing up to date the information required to be supplied in the initial filing by subsection (f) (A) of this section, and to file with the Secretary of Labor and furnish to its members annually financial reports in the form and manner prescribed in subsection (f) (B). No labor organization shall be eligible for certification under this section as the representative of any employees, and no complaint shall issue under section 10 with respect to a charge filed by a labor organization unless it can show that it and any national or international labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit has complied with its obligation under this subsection.
“(h) No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question affecting commerce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organization under subsection (c) of this section, and no complaint shall be issued pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 10, unless there is on file with the Board an affidavit executed contemporaneously or within the preceding twelve-month period by each officer of such labor organization and the officers of any national or international labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit that he is not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party, and that he does not believe in, and is not a member of or supports any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods. The provisions of section 35 A of the Criminal Code shall be applicable in respect to such affidavits.” 61 Stat. 143, 145-146, 65 Stat. 602, 29 U. S. C. § 159 (a), (f), (g) and (h).
Respondent also had sought the injunction on the alternative ground that the request for recognition of the union was being made in the absence of a selection of the union by the majority of respondent’s employees. The Supreme Court of Louisiana did not pass upon this contention. The record upon which the temporary and the permanent injunctions were granted contained concededly genuine applications for union membership and authorizations of representation from 179 of the 225 eligible employees. Accordingly, we do not now consider the questions that would have been presented if the union or the pickets had represented less than a majority of the eligible employees, or if there had been a bona fide dispute as to the existence of authorization from a majority of the eligible employees.
“Sec. 8. (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
“(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9 (a).” 61 Stat. 140, 141, 29 U. S. C. §158 (a) (5). For the material portion of §9 (a), see note 1, supra.
Congress seeks "to stop the use of the Labor Board” by noncomplying unions. Labor Board v. Dant, 344 U. S. 375, 385. For example, the following benefits are available to labor organizations only upon their voluntary compliance with the conditions prescribed in the statutory provisions listed below:
(1) The Board’s investigations of questions, raised by labor organizations, concerning representation, on compliance with § 9 (f) and (h); (2) labor organizations’ eligibility for certification as representatives, on compliance with § 9 (g) and (h); (3) the Board’s issuance of complaints pursuant to charges by labor organizations, on compliance with § 9 (f) and (g); (4) privilege of making a union-shop agreement, see § 8 (a) (3); (5) labor organizations’ right to obtain redress from Board for unfair labor practices, see § 8; (6) limited right to engage in boycott when seeking recognition, see § 8 (b) (4) (B); (7) limited right to strike for assignment of work, see § 8 (b) (4) (D); and (8) limited protection for a certified representative against a strike for recognition of a rival organization, see § 8 (b) (4) (C).
The Board may provide relief in case of a refusal by a noncomplying union to bargain in good faith, as required by § 8 (b)(3). See Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, 86 N. L. R. B. 1041, 1048, and n. 16; National Maritime Union, 78 N. L. R. B. 971, 987-988. As to decertification of a noncomplying union under § 9 (c) (1) (A) (ii), see Harris Foundry & Machine Co., 76 N. L. R. B. 118. For the effect of noncompliance with § 9 (h), see generally American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 390.
See note 3, supra. When a majority of an employer’s eligible employees have authorized a noncomplying union to’ represent them and such union later has complied with the statutory filing requirements, the union, under appropriate circumstances, has been permitted to invoke the Board’s processes to remedy the consequences of the employer’s prior refusal to bargain with the union.
“. . . Congress has not made compliance with the filing requirements of § 9 (f), (g) and (h) a condition precedent to the obligation of an employer under § 8 (a) (5) to bargain collectively with the chosen representative of the employees; such compliance is merely made a condition precedent to invoking the machinery of the Act for the investigation of a question concerning representation, or for the issuance of a complaint charging the commission of unfair labor practices.” Labor Board v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 205 F. 2d 131, 133-134. See also, Labor Board v. Pecheur Lozenge Co., 209 F. 2d 393, 402-403; Labor Board v. Tennessee Egg Co., 201 F. 2d 370; West Texas Utilities Co. v. Labor Board, 87 U. S. App. D. C. 179, 185, 184 F. 2d 233, 239.
See note 1, supra.
A Board election is not the only method by which an employer may satisfy itself as to the union’s majority status. See, e. g., Labor Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., 310 U. S. 318, 338-339; Labor Board v. Knickerbocker Plastic Co., 218 F. 2d 917, 921-922; Labor Board v. Parma Water Lifter Co., 211 F. 2d 258, 261; Labor Board v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., 210 F. 2d 501, 503-504; Labor Board v. Kobritz, 193 F. 2d 8, 14; Brookville Glove Co., 114 N. L. R. B. 213, 214, n. 4, 36 L. R. R. M. 1548, 1549, n. 4.
“. . . The Act does not proscribe bargaining with a noncomplying union; indeed, consonant with public policy, an employer may voluntarily recognize and deal with such a union. If Congress had intended the Act to have the effect urged by the Respondents, it easily could have inserted an express provision in the statute to accomplish such result. This, Congress did not do.” Brookville Glove Co., supra, at 1549. The Board there held that the employer committed an unfair labor practice (§8 (a) (3)) when it discharged employees who struck to induce their employer to recognize as their bargaining representative the same noncomplying union (United Mine Workers) which is a petitioner here. There also the union had been designated as their chosen representative by a majority of the eligible employees. See also, Rubin Bros. Footwear, Inc., 99 N. L. R. B. 610, 619; Labor Board v. Coal Creek Coal Co., 204 F. 2d 579, 581; Labor Board v. Electronics Equipment Co., 194 F. 2d 650, 651, n. 1; Labor Board v. Pratt, Read & Co., 191 F. 2d 1006, 1008. Cf. Ohio Ferro-Alloys Corp. v. Labor Board, 213 F. 2d 646; Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Labor Board, 194 F. 2d 207.
The cross reference to § 8 (a) (3) has to do only with an exception in favor of union shops.
For example, § 9 (f) prescribes that, unless the labor organization files the required material, “No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question affecting commerce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organization under subsection (c) of this section . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Subsection (c) of § 9 so referred to relates to elections of collective-bargaining representatives under supervision of the Board. Section 9 (f) also prescribes that, unless the labor organization files the required material, “no complaint shall be issued [by the Board] pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 10 ... .” (Emphasis supplied.) Subsection (b) of § 10 so referred to relates to complaints by the Board, so that here again that which is cut off by noneompliance is only that which the Act has added. Subsections (g) and (h) of § 9 contain like provisions.
For the Board’s conclusion that an employer may not have recourse to the Board to verify, by certification, the union’s status or lack of status as the exclusive representative of the eligible employees, see Herman Loewenstein, Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 377; Sigmund Cohn Mfg. Co., 75 N. L. R. B. 177, 180, n. 2; National Maritime Union v. Herzog, 78 F. Supp. 146, 156, aff’d, 334 U. S. 854; Fay v. Douds, 172 F. 2d 720, 724-726.
“Sec. 13. Nothing in this Act, except as specifically provided for herein, shall be construed so as either to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike, or to affect the limitations or qualifications on that right.” 61 Stat. 151, 29 U. S. C. § 163. See also, Labor Board v. Rice Milling Co., 341 U. S. 665, 673, and cases cited in note 6, supra.
“Present law in no way limits the primary strike for recognition except in the face of another union’s certification.” Report of the Joint Committee on Labor-Management Relations, No. 986, Pt. 3, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. 71; S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 22; H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 43. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the state or territory of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. | What is the state of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed? | [
"Alabama",
"Alaska",
"American Samoa",
"Arizona",
"Arkansas",
"California",
"Colorado",
"Connecticut",
"Delaware",
"District of Columbia",
"Federated States of Micronesia",
"Florida",
"Georgia",
"Guam",
"Hawaii",
"Idaho",
"Illinois",
"Indiana",
"Iowa",
"Kansas",
"Kentucky",
"Louisiana",
"Maine",
"Marshall Islands",
"Maryland",
"Massachusetts",
"Michigan",
"Minnesota",
"Mississippi",
"Missouri",
"Montana",
"Nebraska",
"Nevada",
"New Hampshire",
"New Jersey",
"New Mexico",
"New York",
"North Carolina",
"North Dakota",
"Northern Mariana Islands",
"Ohio",
"Oklahoma",
"Oregon",
"Palau",
"Pennsylvania",
"Puerto Rico",
"Rhode Island",
"South Carolina",
"South Dakota",
"Tennessee",
"Texas",
"Utah",
"Vermont",
"Virgin Islands",
"Virginia",
"Washington",
"West Virginia",
"Wisconsin",
"Wyoming",
"United States",
"Interstate Compact",
"Philippines",
"Indian",
"Dakota"
] | [
21
] | sc |
ALTON v. ALTON.
No. 531.
Argued April 7, 1954.
Decided June 1, 1954.
Abe Fortas and George H. T. Dudley argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief was Milton V. Freeman.
Hyman Smollar submitted the cause on brief for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner brought this action for divorce in the Virgin Islands. Following argument and submission of the case in this Court, we were authoritatively advised that a final divorce decree had been entered on April 28, 1954, in the State of Connecticut on application of the respondent. The Superior Court of Connecticut found respondent to be a domiciliary of that State and petitioner here personally appeared in that action. Petitioner does not suggest that she repudiates her appearance in the Connecticut action, that the Connecticut decree is invalid in any way, or, in fact, that there is any colorable basis for challenging it. Nor does petitioner seek any ancillary relief in the instant divorce action that could not be obtained in an independent action in the Virgin Islands.
On the premises, this case appears to be moot. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate its judgment and to dismiss the proceeding upon the ground that the cause is moot. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. 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. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations | What is the ideological direction of the decision reviewed by the Supreme Court? | [
"Conservative",
"Liberal",
"Unspecifiable"
] | [
0
] | sc |
ABBOTT v. ABBOTT
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-645.
Argued January 12, 2010 —
Decided May 17, 2010
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scaua, Ginsburg, Auto, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 23.
Amy Howe argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Kevin K. Russell, Thomas C. Goldstein, Adair Dyer, Jr., Pamela S. Karlan, and Jeffrey L. Fisher.
Ginger D. Anders argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Kagan, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Assistant Attorney General West, Michael J. Singer, Howard S. Scher, Harold Hongju Koh, and Mary Helen Carlson.
Karl E. Hays argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Stephen B. Kinnaird, Alexander M. R. Lyon, Sean D. Unger, and Stephanos Bibas.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of California by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. de Nicola, Deputy State Solicitor General, and Bridget Billeter and Elaine F. Tumonis, Deputy Attorneys General; for the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law by Stephen J. Cullen and Kelly A Powers; and by the S&W International ChildFind Program et al. by Barry S. Pollack, Laura A. Steinberg, Kevin Colmey, Nicholas M. O’Donnell, Joshua L. Solomon, Lindsay Barna, and Franklin B. Velie.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project et al. by Leonard O. Evans III, Donald B. Mitchell, Deanne M. Ottaviano, and Joan S. Meier; for the University of Cincinnati College of Law Domestic Violence and Civil Protection Order Clinic by Margaret Bell Drew; and for Lawrence H. Stotter et al. by E. Joshua Rosenkranz and Lisa T. Simpson.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for Eleven Law Professors by Carol S. Bruch, Nicole M. Moen, and Sarah C. S. McLaren; for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children by Benjamin S. Halasz; and for Reunite International Child Abduction Centre by Robert A Long, Jr.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This ease presents, as it has from its inception in the United States District Court, a question of interpretation under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Convention), Oct. 25,1980, T. I. A. S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11. The United States is a contracting state to the Convention; and Congress has implemented its provisions through the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 102 Stat. 437, 42 U. S. C. §11601 et seq. The Convention provides that a child abducted in violation of “rights of custody” must be returned to the child’s country of habitual residence, unless certain exceptions apply. Art. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11, at 7 (Treaty Doc.). The question is whether a parent has a “righ[t] of custody” by reason of that parent’s ne exeat right: the authority to consent before the other parent may take the child to another country.
I
Timothy Abbott and Jacquelyn Vaye Abbott married in England in 1992. He is a British citizen, and she is a citizen of the United States. Mr. Abbott’s astronomy profession took the couple to Hawaii, where their son A. J. A. was born in 1995. The Abbotts moved to La Serena, Chile, in 2002. There was marital discord, and the parents separated in March 2003. The Chilean courts granted the mother daily care and control of the child, while awarding the father “direct and regular” visitation rights, including visitation every other weekend and for the whole month of February each year. App. 9.
Chilean law conferred upon Mr. Abbott what is commonly known as a we exeat right: a right to consent before Ms. Abbott could take A. J. A. out of Chile. See Minors Law 16,618, Art. 49, App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a (granting a ne exeat right to any parent with visitation rights). In effect a ne exeat right imposes a duty on one parent that is a right in the other. After Mr. Abbott obtained a British passport for A. J. A., Ms. Abbott grew concerned that Mr. Abbott would take the boy to Britain. She sought and obtained a “ne exeat of the minor” order from the Chilean family court, prohibiting the boy from being taken out of Chile. App. to Pet. for Cert. 68a-69a.
In August 2005, while proceedings before the Chilean court were pending, the mother removed the boy from Chile without permission from either the father or the court. A private investigator located the mother and the child in Texas. In February 2006, the mother filed for divorce in Texas state court. Part of the relief she sought was a modification of the father’s rights, including full power in her to determine the boy’s place of residence and an order limiting the father to supervised visitation in Texas. This litigation remains pending.
Mr. Abbott brought an action in Texas state court, asking for visitation rights and an order requiring Ms. Abbott to show cause why the court should not allow Mr. Abbott to return to Chile with A. J. A. In February 2006, the court denied Mr. Abbott’s requested relief but granted him “liberal periods of possession” of A. J. A. throughout February 2006, provided Mr. Abbott remained in Texas. App. 42.
Iii May 2006, Mr. Abbott filed the instant action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. He sought an order requiring his son’s return to Chile pursuant to the Convention and enforcement provisions of the ICARA. In July 2007, after holding a bench trial during which only Mr. Abbott testified, the District Court denied relief. The court held that the father’s ne exeat right did not constitute a right of custody under the Convention and, as a result, that the return remedy was not authorized. 495 F. Supp. 2d 635, 640.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the same rationale. The court held the father possessed no rights of custody under the Convention because his ne exeat right was only “a veto right over his son’s departure from Chile.” 542 F. 3d 1081, 1087 (2008). The court expressed substantial agreement with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Croll v. Croll, 229 F. 3d 133 (2000). Relying on American dictionary definitions of “custody” and noting that ne exeat rights cannot be “ 'actually exercised’ ” within the meaning of the Convention, Croll held that ne exeat rights are not rights of custody. Id., at 138-141 (quoting Art. 3(6)). A dissenting opinion in Croll was filed by then-Judge Sotomayor. The dissent maintained that a ne exeat right is a right of custody because it “provides a parent with decisionmaking authority regarding a child’s international relocation.” Id., at 146.
The Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits adopted the conclusion of the Croll majority. See Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F. 3d 491, 500 (CA4 2003); Gonzalez v. Gutierrez, 311 F. 3d 942, 949 (CA9 2002). The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has followed the reasoning of the Croll dissent. Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F. 3d 702, 720, n. 15 (2004). Certiorari was granted to resolve the conflict. 557 U. S. 933 (2009).
II
The Convention was adopted in 1980 in response to the problem of international child abductions during domestic disputes. The Convention seeks “to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State,” and “to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.” Art. 1, Treaty Doc., at 7.
The provisions of the Convention of most relevance at the outset of this discussion are as follows:
“Article 3: The removal or the retention of the child is to be considered wrongful where—
“a it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
“b at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
“Article 5: For the purposes of this Convention—
“a ‘rights of custody shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence;
“b ‘rights of access’ shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.
“Article 12: Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 ... the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith.” Id., at 7, 9.
The Convention’s central operating feature is the return remedy. When a child under the age of 16 has been wrongfully removed or retained, the country to which the child has been brought must “order the return of the ehild forthwith,” unless certain exceptions apply. See, e. g., Arts. 4,12, ibid. A removal is “wrongful” where the child was removed in violation of “rights of custody.” The Convention defines “rights of custody” to “include rights relating to the care of the person of the ehild and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence.” Art. 5(a), id., at 7. A return remedy does not alter the preabduction allocation of custody rights but leaves custodial decisions to the courts of the country of habitual residence. Art. 19, id., at 11. The Convention also recognizes “rights of access,” but offers no return remedy for a breach of those rights. Arts. 5(b), 21, id., at 7,11.
The United States has implemented the Convention through the ICARA. The statute authorizes a person who seeks a child’s return to file a petition in state or federal court and instructs that the court “shall decide the case in accordance with the Convention.” 42 U. S. C. §§ 11603(a), (b), (d). If the child in question has been “wrongfully removed or retained within the meaning of the Convention,” the ehild shall be “promptly returned,” unless an exception is applicable. § 11601(a)(4).
Ill
As the parties agree, the Convention applies to this dispute. A. J. A. is under 16 years old; he was a habitual resident of Chile; and both Chile and the United States are contracting states. The question is whether A. J. A. was “wrongfully removed” from Chile, in other words, whether he was removed in violation of a right of custody. This Court’s inquiry is shaped by the text of the Convention; the views of the United States Department of State; decisions addressing the meaning of “rights of custody” in courts of other contracting states; and the purposes of the Convention. After considering these sources, the Court determines that Mr. Abbott’s ne exeat right is a right of custody under the Convention.
A
“The interpretation of a treaty, like the interpretation of a statute, begins with its text.” Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491, 506 (2008). This Court consults Chilean law to determine the content of Mr. Abbott’s right, while following the Convention’s text and structure to decide whether the right at issue is a “righ[t] of custody.”
Chilean law granted Mr. Abbott a joint right to decide his child’s country of residence, otherwise known as a we exeat right. Minors Law 16,618, Art. 49, App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a, 62a, provides that “[o]nce the court has decreed” that one of the parents has visitation rights, that parent’s “authorization .. . shall also be required” before the child may be taken out of the country, subject to court override only where authorization “cannot be granted or is denied without good reason.” Mr. Abbott has “direct and regular” visitation rights, and it follows from Chilean law that he has a shared right to determine his son’s country of residence under this provision. App. 9. To support the conclusion that Mr. Abbott’s right under Chilean law gives him a joint right to decide his son’s country of residence, it is notable that a Chilean agency has explained that Minors Law 16,618 is a “‘right to authorize the minors’ exit’” from Chile and that this provision means that neither parent can “unilaterally” “establish the [child’s] place of residence.” Letter from Paula Strap Camus, Director General, Corporation of Judicial Assistance of the Region Metropolitana, to National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (Jan. 17, 2006), App. to Pet. for Cert, in Villegas Duran v. Arribada Beaumont, No. 08-775, pp. 35a-37a, cert. pending [Reporter’s Note: See post, p. 921].
The Convention recognizes that custody rights can be decreed jointly or alone, see Art. 3(a), Treaty Doc., at 7; and Mr, Abbott’s joint right to determine his son’s country of residence is best classified as a joint right of custody, as the Convention defines that term. The Convention defines “rights of custody” to “include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence.” Art. 5(a), ibid. Mr. Abbott’s ne exeat right gives him both the joint “right to determine the child’s place of residence” and joint “rights relating to the care of the person of the child.”
Mr. Abbott’s joint right to decide A. J. A.’s country of residence allows him to “determine the child’s place of residence.” The phrase “place of residence” encompasses the child’s country of residence, especially in light of the Convention’s explicit purpose to prevent wrongful removal across international borders. See Convention Preamble, Treaty Doc., at 7. And even if “place of residence” refers only to the child’s street address within a country, a ne exeat right still entitles Mr. Abbott to “determine” that place. “[Dieter-mine” can mean “[t]o fix conclusively or authoritatively,” Webster’s New International Dictionary 711 (2d ed. 1954) (2d definition), but it can also mean “[t]o set bounds or limits to,” ibid. (1st definition), which is what Mr. Abbott’s ne exeat right allows by ensuring that A. J. A. cannot live at any street addresses outside of Chile. It follows that the Convention’s protection of a parent’s custodial “right to determine the child’s place of residence” includes a ne exeat right.
Mr. Abbott’s joint right to determine A. J. A.’s country of residence also gives him “rights relating to the care of the person of the child.” Art. 5(a), Treaty Doe., at 7. Pew decisions are as significant as the language the child speaks, the identity he finds, or the culture and traditions she will come to absorb. These factors, so essential to self-definition, are linked in an inextricable way to the child’s country of residence. One need only consider the different childhoods an adolescent will experience if he or she grows up in the United States, Chile, Germany, or North Korea, to understand how choosing a child’s country of residence is a right “relating to the care of the person of the child.” The Court of Appeals described Mr. Abbott’s right to take part in making this decision as a mere “veto,” 542 F. 3d, at 1087; but even by that truncated description, the father has an essential role in deciding the boy’s country of residence. For example, Mr. Abbott could condition his consent to a change in country on A. J. A.’s moving to a city outside Chile where Mr. Abbott could obtain an astronomy position, thus allowing the father to have continued contact with the boy.
That a ne exeat right does not fit within traditional notions of physical custody is beside the point. The Convention defines “rights of custody,” and it is that definition that a court must consult. This uniform, text-based approach ensures international consistency in interpreting the Convention. It forecloses courts from relying on definitions of custody confined by local law usage, definitions that may undermine recognition of custodial arrangements in other countries or in different legal traditions, including the civil-law tradition. And, in any case, our own legal system has adopted conceptions of custody that accord with the Convention’s broad definition. Joint legal custody, in which one parent cares for the child while the other has joint decisionmaking authority concerning the child’s welfare, has become increasingly common. See Singer, Dispute Resolution and the Postdivorce Family: Implications of a Paradigm Shift, 47 Family Ct. Rev. 363, 366 (2009) (“[A] recent study of child custody outcomes in North Carolina indicated that almost 70% of all custody resolutions included joint legal custody, as did over 90% of all mediated custody agreements”); E. Maccoby & R. Mnookin, Dividing the Child: Social and Legal Dilemmas of Custody 107 (1992) (“[F]or 79 percent of our entire sample, the [California] divorce decree provided for joint legal custody”); see generally Elrod, Reforming the System To Protect Children in High Conflict Custody Cases, 28 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 495, 505-508 (2001).
Ms. Abbott gets the analysis backwards in claiming that a ne exeat right is not a right of custody because the Convention requires that any right of custody must be capable of exercise. The Convention protects rights of custody when “at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.” Art. 3(6), Treaty Doc., at 7. In cases like this one, a ne exeat right is by its nature inchoate and so has no operative force except when the other parent seeks to remove the child from the country. If that occurs, the parent can exercise the ne exeat right by declining consent to the exit or placing conditions to ensure the move will be in the child’s best interests. When one parent removes the child without seeking the Tie exeat holder’s consent, it is an instance where the right would have been “exercised but for the removal or retention.” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that a breach of a ne exeat right does not give rise to a return remedy would render the Convention meaningless in many cases where it is most needed. The Convention provides a return remedy when a parent takes a child across international borders in violation of a right of custody. The Convention provides no return remedy when a parent removes a child in violation of a right of access but requires contracting states “to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights.” Art. 21, id., at 11. For example, a court may force the custodial parent to pay the travel costs of visitation, see, e. g., Viragh v. Foldes, 415 Mass. 96, 109-111, 612 N. E. 2d 241, 249-250 (1993), or make other provisions for the noncustodial parent to visit his or her child, see § 11603(b) (authorizing petitions to “secur[e] the effective exercise of rights of access to a child”). But unlike rights of access, ne exeat rights can only be honored with a return remedy because these rights depend on the child’s location being the country of habitual residence.
Any suggestion that a ne exeat right is a “righft] of access” is illogical and atextual. The Convention defines “rights of access” as “including] the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence,” Art. 5(b), Treaty Doc., at 7, and the ICARA defines that same term as “visitation rights,” § 11602(7). The joint right to decide a child’s country of residence is not even arguably a “right to take a child for a limited period of time” or a “visitation righ[t].” Reaching the commonsense conclusion that a ne exeat right does not fit these definitions of “rights of access” honors the Convention’s distinction between rights of access and rights of custody.
Ms. Abbott argues that the ne exeat order in this case cannot create a right of custody because it merely protects a court’s jurisdiction over the child. Even if this argument were correct, it would not be dispositive. Ms. Abbott contends the Chilean court’s ne exeat order contains no parental consent provision and so awards the father no rights, custodial or otherwise. See Brief for Respondent 22; but see 495 F. Supp. 2d, at 638, n. 3 (the District Court treating the order as containing a consent provision); 542 F. 3d, at 1084 (same for the Court of Appeals). Even a ne exeat order issued to protect a court’s jurisdiction pending issuance of further decrees is consistent with allowing a parent to object to the child’s removal from the country. This Court need not decide the status of ne exeat orders lacking parental consent provisions, however; for here the father relies on his rights under Minors Law 16,618. Mr. Abbott’s rights derive not from the order but from Minors Law 16,618. That law requires the father’s consent before the mother can remove the boy from Chile, subject only to the equitable power family courts retain to override any joint custodial arrangements in times of disagreement. Minors Law 16,618; see 1 J. Atkinson, Modern Child Custody Practice §6-11, p. 6-21 (2d ed. 2009) (“[TJhe court remains the final arbiter and may resolve the [dispute between joint custodians] itself or designate one parent as having final authority on certain issues affecting thé child”); Lombardo v. Lombardo, 202 Mich. App. 151, 159, 507 N. W. 2d 788, 792 (1993) (“[WJhere the parents as joint custodians cannot agree on important matters such as education, it is the court’s duty to determine the issue in the best interests of the child”). The consent provision in Minors Law 16,618 confers upon the father the joint right to determine his child’s country of residence. This is a right of custody under the Convention.
B
This Court’s conclusion that Mr. Abbott possesses a right of custody under the Convention is supported and informed by the State Department’s view on the issue. The United States has endorsed the view that ne exeat rights are rights of custody. In its brief before this Court the United States advises that “the Department of State, whose Office of Children’s Issues serves as the Central Authority for the United States under the Convention, has long understood the Convention as including ne exeat rights among the protected 'rights of custody.’ ” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 21; see Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U. S. 176, 184, n. 10 (1982) (deferring to the Executive’s interpretation of a treaty as memorialized in a brief before this Court). It is well settled that the Executive Branch’s interpretation of a treaty “is entitled to great weight.” Id., at 185. There is no reason to doubt that this well-established canon of deference is appropriate here. The Executive is well informed concerning the diplomatic consequences resulting from this Court’s interpretation of “rights of custody,” including the likely reaction of other contracting states and the impact on the State Department’s ability to reclaim children abducted from this country.
c
This Court’s conclusion that ne exeat rights are rights of custody is further informed by the views of other contracting states. In interpreting any treaty, “[t]he ‘opinions of our sister signatories’ ... are ‘entitled to considerable weight.’” El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U. S. 155, 176 (1999) (quoting Air France v. Saks, 470 U. S. 392, 404 (1985)). The principle applies with special force here, for Congress has directed that “uniform international interpretation of the Convention” is part of the Convention’s framework. See § 11601(b)(3)(B).
A review of the international case law confirms broad acceptance of the rule that ne exeat rights are rights of custody. In an early decision, the English Court of Appeal explained that a father’s “right to ensure that the child remained] in Australia or live[d] anywhere outside Australia only with his approval” is a right of custody requiring return of the child to Australia. C. v. C., [1989] 1 W. L. R. 654, 658 (C. A.). Lords of the House of Lords have agreed, noting that C. v. C.’s conclusion is “settled, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned” and “appears to be the majority [view] of the common law world.” See In re D (A Child), [2007] 1 A. C. 619, ¶¶ 14, 31, 37 (2006).
The Supreme Court of Israel follows the same rule, concluding that “the term ‘custody’ should be interpreted in an expansive way, so that it will apply [i]n every case in which there is a need for the consent of one of the parents to remove the children from one country to another.” CA 5271/ 92 Foxman v. Foxman, [1992], §§ 3(D), 4 (K. Chagall transl.). The High Courts of Austria, South Africa, and Germany are in accord. See Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] Feb. 5, 1992, 2 Ob 596/91 (Austria) (Dept. of State transl.) (“Since the English Custody Court had ordered that the children must not be removed from England and Wales without the father’s written consent, both parents had, in effect, been granted joint custody concerning the children’s place of residence”); Sonderup v. Tondelli, 2001 (1) SA 1171, 1183 (Constitutional Ct., S. Afr. 2000) (“[The mother’s] failure to return to British Columbia with the child... was a breach of the conditions upon which she was entitled to exercise her rights of custody and . . . therefore constituted a wrongful retention ... as contemplated by [Article 3] of the Convention”); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Fed. Constitutional Ct.] July 18, 1997, 2 BvR 1126/97, ¶ 15 (Ger.) (Dept. of State transl.) (the Convention requires a return remedy for a violation of the “right to have a say in the child’s place of residence”). Appellate courts in Australia and Scotland agree. See In the Marriage of Resina, [1991], FamCA 33, ¶¶ 18-27 (Austl.); A. J. v. F. J., [2005] CSIH 36, 2005 1 S. C. 428, 435-436.
It is true that some courts have stated a contrary view, or at least a more restrictive one. The Canadian Supreme Court has said ne exeat orders are “usually intended” to protect access rights. Thomson v. Thomson, [1994] 3 S. C. R. 551, 589-590, 119 D. L. R. (4th) 253, 281; see D. S. v. V. W., [1996] 2 S. C. R. 108, 134 D. L. R. (4th) 481. But the Canadian eases are not precisely on point here. Thomson ordered a return remedy based on an interim ne exeat order, and only noted in dicta that it may not order such a remedy pursuant to a permanent ne exeat order. See [1994] 3 S. C. R., at 589-590, 119 D. L. R. (4th), at 281. D. S. involved a parent’s claim based on an implicit ne exeat right and, in any event, the court ordered a return remedy on a different basis. See [1996] 2 S. C. R., at 140-141, 142, 134 D. L. R. (4th), at 503-504, 505.
French courts are divided. A French Court of Appeals held that “the right to accept or refuse the removal of the children’s residence” outside of a region was “a joint exercise of rights of custody.” Ministére public v. M. B. (CA, Aix-en-Provence, 6e ch., Mar. 23, 1989), in 79 revue critique de droit international privé 529, 533-535 (July-Sept. 1990). A trial court in a different region of France rejected this view, relying on the mother’s “fundamental liberty” to establish her domicile. See Procureur de la République de Péri-gueux v. Mme S. (TGI, Périgueux, Mar. 17,1992), in 82 Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 650, 651-653 (Oct.Dee. 1993).
Scholars agree that there is an emerging international consensus that ne exeat rights are rights of custody, even if that view was not generally formulated when the Convention was drafted in 1980. At that time, joint custodial arrangements were unknown in many of the contracting states, and the status of ne exeat rights was not yet well understood. See 1980 Conférence de La Haye de droit international privé, Enlevement d’enfants, morning meeting of Wed., Oct. 8,1980 (discussion by Messrs. Leal & van Boeschoten), in 3 Actes et Documents de la Quatorziéme Session, pp. 263-266 (1982) (Canadian and Dutch delegates disagreeing whether the Convention protected ne exeat rights, while agreeing that it should protect such rights). Since 1980, however, joint custodial arrangements have become more common. See supra, at 12. And, within this framework, most contracting states and scholars now recognize that ne exeat rights are rights of custody. See, e. g., Hague Conference on Private International Law: Transfrontier Contact Concerning Children: General Principles and Guide to Good Practice § 9.3, p. 43 (2008) (“[Preponderance of the case law supports the view” that ne exeat rights are “rights of custody” (footnote omitted)); Hague Conference on Private International Law: Overall Conclusions of the Special Commission of Oct. 1989 on the Operation of the Hague Convention of 25 Oct. 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, reprinted in 29 I. L. M. 219, 222, ¶ 9 (1990); Hague Conference on Private International Law: Report of the Second Special Commission Meeting To Review the Operation of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 11 (1993), reprinted in 33 I. L. M. 225 (1994); Silberman, The Hague Child Abduction Convention Turns Twenty: Gender Politics and Other Issues, 33 N. Y. U. J. Int’l L. & Politics 221, 226-232, and n. 13 (2000); Whitman, Croll v. Croll: The Second Circuit Limits “Custody Rights” Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 9 Tulane J. Int’l & Comp. L. 605, 611-616 (2001).
A history of the Convention, known as the Pérez-Vera Report, has been cited both by the parties and by Courts of Appeals that have considered this issue. See 1980 Conférence de La Haye de droit international privé, Enlevement d’enfants, E. Pérez-Vera, Explanatory Report (Pérez-Vera Report or Report), in 3 Actes et Documents de la Quator-ziéme Session, pp. 425-473 (1982). We need not decide whether this Report should be given greater weight than a scholarly commentary. Compare Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg. 10503-10506 (1986) (identifying the Report as the “official history” of the Convention and “a source of background on the meaning of the provisions of the Convention”), with Pérez-Vera Report ¶8, at 427-428 (“[The Report] has not been approved by the Conference, and it is possible that, despite the Rapporter’s [sic] efforts to remain objective, certain passages reflect a viewpoint which is in part subjective”). It suffices to note that the Report supports the conclusion that ne exeat rights are rights of custody. The Report explains that rather than defining custody in precise terms or referring to the laws of different nations pertaining to parental rights, the Convention uses the unadorned term “rights of custody” to recognize “all the ways in which custody of children can be exercised” through “a flexible interpretation of the terms used, which allows the greatest possible number of cases to be brought into consideration.” Id., ¶¶ 67, 71, at 446, 447-448. Thus the Report rejects the notion that because ne exeat rights do not encompass the right to make medical or some other important decisions about a child’s life they cannot be rights of custody. Indeed, the Report is fully consistent with the conclusion that ne exeat rights are just one of the many “ways in which custody of children can be exercised.” Id., ¶ 71, at 447.
D
Adopting the view that the Convention provides a return remedy for violations of Tie exeat rights accords with its objects and purposes. The Convention is based on the principle that the best interests of the child are well served when decisions regarding custody rights are made in the country of habitual residence. See Convention Preamble, Treaty Doc., at 7. Ordering a return remedy does not alter the existing allocation of custody rights, Art. 19, id., at 11, but does allow the courts of the home country to decide what is in the child’s best interests. It is the Convention’s premise that courts in contracting states will make this determination in a responsible manner.
Custody decisions are often difficult. Judges must strive always to avoid a common tendency to prefer their own society and culture, a tendency that ought not interfere with objective consideration of all the factors that should be weighed in determining the best interests of the child. This judicial neutrality is presumed from the mandate of the Convention, which affirms that the contracting states are “[fjirmly convinced that the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody.” Convention Preamble, id., at 7. International law serves a high purpose when it underwrites the determination by nations to rely upon their domestic courts to enforce just laws by legitimate and fair proceedings.
To interpret the Convention to permit an abducting parent to avoid a return remedy, even when the other parent holds a ne exeat right, would run counter to the Convention’s purpose of deterring child abductions by parents who attempt to find a friendlier forum for deciding custodial disputes. Ms. Abbott removed A. J. A. from Chile while Mr. Abbott’s request to enhance his relationship with his son was still pending before Chilean courts. After she landed in Texas, the mother asked the state court to diminish or eliminate the father’s custodial and visitation rights. The Convention should not be interpreted to permit a parent to select which country will adjudicate these questions by bringing the child to a different country, in violation of a ne exeat right. Denying a return remedy for the violation of such rights would “legitimize the very action — removal of the child — that the home country, through its custody order [or other provision of law], sought to prevent” and would allow “parents to undermine the very purpose of the Convention.” Croll, 229 F. 3d, at 147 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). This Court should be most reluctant to adopt an interpretation that gives an abducting parent an advantage by coming here to avoid a return remedy that is granted, for instance, in the United Kingdom, Israel, Germany, and South Africa. See supra, at 16.
Requiring a return remedy in cases like this one helps deter child abductions and respects the Convention’s purpose to prevent harms resulting from abductions. An abduction can have devastating consequences for a child. “Some child psychologists believe that the trauma children suffer from these abductions is one of the worst forms of child abuse.” H. R. Rep. No. 103-390, p. 2 (1993). A child abducted by one parent is separated from the second parent and the child’s support system. Studies have shown that separation by abduction can cause psychological problems ranging from depression and acute stress disorder to posttraumatic stress disorder and identity-formation issues. See N. Faulkner, Parental Child Abduction is Child Abuse (1999-2006), http:// www.prevent-abuse-now.com/unreport.htm (as visited May 13,2010, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). A child abducted at an early age can experience loss of community and stability, leading to loneliness, anger, and fear of abandonment. See Huntington, Parental Kidnapping: A New Form of Child Abuse (1984), in American Prosecutors Research Institute’s National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, Parental Abduction Project, Investigation and Prosecution of Parental Abduction (1995) (App. A). Abductions may prevent the child from forming a relationship with the left-behind parent, impairing the child’s ability to mature. See Faulkner, supra, at 5.
IV
While a parent possessing a ne exeat right has a right of custody and may seek a return remedy, a return order is not automatic. Return is not required if the abducting parent can establish that a Convention exception applies. One exception states return of the child is not required when “there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.” Art. 13(b), Treaty Doc., at 10. If, for example, Ms. Abbott could demonstrate that returning to Chile would put her own safety at grave risk, the court could consider whether this is sufficient to show that the child too would suffer “psychological harm” or be placed “in an intolerable situation.” See, e.g., Baran v. Beaty, 526 F. 3d 1340, 1352-1353 (CA11 2008); Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F. 3d 204, 220-221 (CA1 2000). The Convention also allows courts to decline to order removal if the child objects, if the child has reached a sufficient “age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.” Art. 13(b), Treaty Doc., at 10. The proper interpretation and application of these and other exceptions are not before this Court. These matters may be addressed on remand.
* * *
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.
“Residence” can also refer to “[t]he place where a corporation or other enterprise does business or is registered to do business.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1423. Earlier this Term, we recognized the self-evident principle that a corporation’s principal “place” of business for diversity jurisdiction purposes is a single location “within a State” and “not the State itself.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U. S. 77, 93 (2010). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. If the case arose under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, note the source as "United States Supreme Court". If the case arose in a state court, note the source as "State Supreme Court", "State Appellate Court", or "State Trial Court". Do not code the name of the state. | What is the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims"
] | [
23
] | sc |
WOS, SECRETARY, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. E. M. A., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, JOHNSON, et al.
No. 12-98.
Argued January 8, 2013
Decided March 20, 2013
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 644. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined, post, p. 647.
John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General of North Carolina, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Roy Cooper, Attorney General, and Gayl M. Manthei and Belinda A. Smith, Special Deputy Attorneys General.
Christopher Browning, Jr., argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were C. Mark Holt, William B. Bystrynski, and Jeffrey T. Mackie.
Ginger D. Anders argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Verrilli, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Delery, Deputy Solicitor General Kneed-ler, Alisa B. Klein, William B. Schultz, and Janice L. Hoffman.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Texas et al. by Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, Jonathan F. Mitchell, Solicitor General, and Daniel T. Hodge, First Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Luther Strange of Alabama, Sam Olens of Georgia, David M. Louie of Hawaii, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Greg Zoeller of Indiana, Bill Schuette of Michigan, Jon Bruning of Nebraska, Gary K. King of New Mexico, Michael DeWine of Ohio, and Alan Wilson of South Carolina; and for the National Governors Association et al. by Christopher M. Egleson and Lisa E. Soronen.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for AARP et al. by Douglas T. Kendall, Elizabeth B. Wydra, Rochelle Bobroff, Kenneth Zel-ler, and Michael Schuster, for the American Association for Justice et al. by Louis M. Bograd, Mary Alice McLarty, Burton Craige, and Carlos E. Mahoney, and for the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel by Allison O. Van Laningham and Edward M. Kaplan.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A federal statute prohibits States from attaching a lien on the property of a Medicaid beneficiary to recover benefits paid by the State on the beneficiary’s behalf. 42 U. S. C. § 1396p(a)(l). The anti-lien provision pre-empts a State’s effort to take any portion of a Medicaid beneficiary’s tort judgment or settlement not “designated as payments for medical care.” Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Servs. v. Ahlborn, 547 U. S. 268, 284 (2006). North Carolina has enacted a statute requiring that up to one-third of any damages recovered by a beneficiary for a tortious injury be paid to the State to reimburse it for payments it made for medical treatment on account of the injury. See N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 108A-57 (Lexis 2011); Andrews v. Haygood, 362 N. C. 599, 604-605, 669 S. E. 2d 310, 314 (2008). The question presented is whether the North Carolina statute is compatible with the federal anti-lien provision.
f—4
When respondent E. M. A. was born in February 2000, she suffered multiple serious birth injuries which left her deaf, blind, and unable to sit, walk, crawl, or talk. The injuries also cause her to suffer from mental retardation and a seizure disorder. She requires between 12 and 18 hours of skilled nursing care per day. She will not be able to work, live independently, or provide for her basic needs. The cost of her ongoing medical care is paid in part by the State of North Carolina’s Medicaid program.
In February 2003, E. M. A. and her parents filed a medical malpractice suit in North Carolina state court against the physician who delivered E. M. A. at birth and the hospital where she was born. The expert witnesses for E. M. A. and her parents in that proceeding estimated damages in excess of $42 million for medical and life-care expenses, loss of future earning capacity, and other assorted expenses such as architectural renovations to their home and specialized transportation equipment. App. 91-112. By far the largest part of this estimate was for “Skilled Home Care,” totaling more than $37 million over E. M. A.’s lifetime. Id., at 112. E. M. A. and her parents also sought damages for her pain and suffering and for her parents’ emotional distress. Id., at 64-65, 67-68, 72-73, 75-76. Their experts did not estimate the damages in these last two categories.
Assisted by a mediator, the parties began settlement negotiations. E. M. A. and her parents informed the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services of the negotiations. The department had a statutory right to intervene in the malpractice suit and participate in the settlement negotiations in order to obtain reimbursement for the medical expenses it paid on E. M. A.’s behalf, up to one-third of the total recovery. See N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 108A-57, 108A-59. It elected not to do so, though its representative informed E. M. A. and her parents that the State’s Medicaid program had expended $1.9 million for E. M. A.’s medical care, which it would seek to recover from any tort judgment or settlement.
In November 2006, the court approved a $2.8 million settlement. The amount, apparently, was dictated in large part by the policy limits on the defendants’ medical malpractice insurance coverage. See Brief for Respondents 5. The settlement agreement did not allocate the money among the different claims E. M. A. and her parents had advanced. In approving the settlement the court placed one-third of the $2.8 million recovery into an interest-bearing escrow account “until such time as the actual amount of the lien owed by [E. M. A.] to [the State] is conclusively judicially determined.” App. 87.
E. M. A. and her parents then filed this action under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the State’s reimbursement scheme violated the Medicaid anti-lien provision, § 1396p(a)(l). While that litigation was pending, the North Carolina Supreme Court confronted the same question in Andrews, supra. It held that the irrebuttable statutory presumption that one-third of a Medicaid beneficiary’s tort recovery is attributable to medical expenses was “a reasonable method for determining the State’s medical reimbursements.” Id., at 604, 669 S. E. 2d, at 314. The United States District Court, in the instant case, agreed. Armstrong v. Cansler, 722 F. Supp. 2d 653 (2010).
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded. E. M. A. v. Cansler, 674 F. 3d 290 (2012). It concluded that North Carolina’s statutory scheme could not be reconciled with “Ahlborn’s clear holding that the general anti-lien provision in federal Medicaid law prohibits a state from recovering any portion of a settlement or judgment not attributable to medical expenses.” Id., at 310. In some cases, the court reasoned, the actual portion of a beneficiary’s tort recovery representing payment for medical care would be less than one-third. North Carolina’s statutory presumption that one-third of a tort recovery is attributable to medical expenses therefore must be “subject to adversarial testing” in a judicial or administrative proceeding. Id., at 311.
To resolve the conflict between the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case and the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court in Andrews, this Court granted certiorari. 567 U. S. 968 (2012).
t—( K-i
At issue is the interaction between certain provisions of the federal Medicaid statute and state law. Congress has directed States, in administering their Medicaid programs, to seek reimbursement for medical expenses incurred on behalf of beneficiaries who later recover from third-party tort-feasors. States must require beneficiaries “to assign the State any rights ... to support (specified as support for the purpose of medical care by a court or administrative order) and to payment for medical care from any third party.” 42 U. S. C. § 1396k(a)(l)(A). States receiving Medicaid funds must also
“ha[ve] in effect laws under which, to the extent that payment has been made under the State plan for medical assistance for health care items or services furnished to an individual, the State is considered to have acquired the rights of such individual to payment by any other party for such health care items or services.” § 1396a(a)(25)(H).
A separate provision of the Medicaid statute, however, exists in some tension with these requirements. It says that, with exceptions not relevant here, “[n]o lien may be imposed against the property of any individual prior to his death on account of medical assistance paid or to be paid on his behalf under the State plan.” § 1396p(a)(l).
In Ahlborn, the Court addressed this tension and held that the Medicaid statute sets both a floor and a ceiling on a State’s potential share of a beneficiary’s tort recovery. Federal law requires an assignment to the State of “the right to recover that portion of a settlement that represents payments for medical care,” but it also “precludes attachment or encumbrance of the remainder of the settlement.” 547 U. S., at 282, 284. This is so because the beneficiary has a property right in the proceeds of the settlement, bringing it within the ambit of the anti-lien provision. Id., at 285. That property right is subject to the specific statutory “exception” requiring a State to seek reimbursement for medical expenses paid on the beneficiary’s behalf, but the anti-lien provision protects the beneficiary’s interest in the remainder of the settlement. Id., at 284.
A question the Court had no occasion to resolve in Ahl-bom is how to determine what portion of a settlement represents payment for medical care. The parties in that case stipulated that about 6 percent of respondent Ahlborn’s tort recovery (approximately $35,600 of a $550,000 settlement) represented compensation for medical care. Id., at 274. The Court nonetheless anticipated the concern that some settlements would not include an itemized allocation. It also recognized the possibility that Medicaid beneficiaries and tortfeasors might collaborate to allocate an artificially low portion of a settlement to medical expenses. The Court noted that these problems could “be avoided either by obtaining the State’s advance agreement to an allocation or, if necessary, by submitting the matter to a court for decision.” Id., at 288.
North Carolina has attempted a different approach. Its statute provides:
“Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, to the extent of payments under this Part, the State, or the county providing medical assistance benefits, shall be subrogated to all rights of recovery, contractual or otherwise, of the beneficiary of this assistance .... The county attorney, or an attorney retained by the county or the State or both, or an attorney retained by the beneficiary of the assistance if this attorney has actual notice of payments made under this Part shall enforce this section. Any attorney retained by the beneficiary of the assistance shall, out of the proceeds obtained on behalf of the beneficiary by settlement with, judgment against, or otherwise from a third party by reason of injury or death, distribute to the Department the amount of assistance paid by the Department on behalf of or to the beneficiary, as prorated with the claims of all others having medical subrogation rights or medical liens against the amount received or recovered, but the amount paid to the Department shall not exceed one-third of the gross amount obtained or recovered.” N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 108A-57(a).
Before Ahlborn was decided, North Carolina and the state courts interpreted this statute to allow the State to “recover the costs of medical treatment provided . . . even when the funds received by the [beneficiary] are not reimbursement for medical expenses.” Campbell v. North Carolina Dept. of Human Resources, 153 N. C. App. 305, 307-308, 569 S. E. 2d 670, 672 (2002). See also Ezell v. Grace Hospital, Inc., 360 N. C. 529, 631 S. E. 2d 131 (2006) (per curiam). Under Ahlborn, however, this construction of the statute is at odds with the Medicaid anti-lien provision, which “precludes attachment or encumbrance” of any portion of a settlement not “designated as payments for medical care.” 547 U. S., at 284.
In response to Ahlborn, the State advanced—and the North Carolina Supreme Court in Andrews accepted—a new interpretation of its statute. Under this interpretation the statute “defines ‘the portion of the settlement that represents payment for medical expenses’ as the lesser of the State’s past medical expenditures or one-third of the plaintiff’s total recovery.” Andrews, 362 N. C., at 604, 669 S. E. 2d, at 314. In other words, when the State’s Medicaid expenditures on behalf of a beneficiary exceed one-third of the beneficiary’s tort recovery, the statute establishes a conclusive presumption that one-third of the recovery represents compensation for medical expenses. Under this reading of the statute the presumption operates even if the settlement or a jury verdict expressly allocates a lower percentage of the judgment to medical expenses. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 10, 16-17. Cf. Andrews, supra, at 602-604, 669 S. E. 2d, at 313.
⅜—Í I—(
A
Under the Supremacy Clause, “[w]here state and federal law ‘directly conflict,’ state law must give way.” PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U. S. 604, 617 (2011). The Medicaid anti-lien provision prohibits a State from making a claim to any part of a Medicaid beneficiary’s tort recovery not “designated as payments for medical care.” Ahlborn, supra, at 284. North Carolina’s statute, therefore, is pre-empted if, and insofar as, it would operate that way.
And it is pre-empted for that reason. The defect in § 108A-57 is that it sets forth no process for determining what portion of a beneficiary’s tort recovery is attributable to medical expenses. Instead, North Carolina has picked an arbitrary number—one-third—and by statutory command labeled that portion of a beneficiary’s tort recovery as representing payment for medical care. Pre-emption is not a matter of semantics. A State may not evade the preemptive force of federal law by resorting to creative statutory interpretation or description at odds with the statute’s intended operation and effect.
A similar issue was presented last Term, in National Meat Assn. v. Harris, 565 U. S. 452 (2012). That case involved the pre-emptive scope of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U. S. C. § 601 et seq. The Act prohibited States from imposing “ ‘[r]equirements . . . with respect to premises, facilities and operations’” at federally regulated slaughterhouses. National Meat Assn., 565 U. S., at 458 (quoting § 678). The State of California had enacted a law that prohibited slaughterhouses from (among other things) selling meat from non-ambulatory animals for human consumption. Id., at 458-459 (citing Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 599f(b) (West 2010)). California sought to defend the law on the ground that it did not regulate the activities of slaughterhouses but instead restricted what type of meat could be sold in the marketplace after the animals had been butchered. 565 U. S., at 463.
The Court rejected that argument. It recognized that if the argument were to prevail, “then any State could impose any regulation on slaughterhouses just by framing it as a ban on the sale of meat produced in whatever way the State disapproved. That would make a mockery of the [Act’s] preemption provision.” Id., at 464. In a preemption case, the Court held, a proper analysis requires consideration of what the state law in fact does, not how the litigant might choose to describe it.
That reasoning controls here. North Carolina’s argument, if accepted, would frustrate the Medicaid anti-lien provision in the context of tort recoveries. The argument lacks any limiting principle: If a State arbitrarily may designate one-third of any recovery as payment for medical expenses, there is no logical reason why it could not designate half, three-quarters, or all of a tort recovery in the same way. In Ahlborn, the State of Arkansas, under this rationale, would have succeeded in claiming the full amount it sought from the beneficiary had it been more creative and less candid in describing the effect of its full-reimbursement law.
Here the State concedes that it would be “difficult ... to defend” a law purporting to allocate most or all of a beneficiary’s tort recovery to medical expenses. Tr. of Oral Arg. 20. That is true; but, as a doctrinal matter, it is no easier to defend North Carolina’s across-the-board allocation of one-third of all beneficiaries’ tort recoveries to medical expenses. The problem is not that it is an unreasonable approximation in all cases. In some cases, it may well be a fair estimate. But the State provides no evidence to substantiate its claim that the one-third allocation is reasonable in the mine run of cases. Nor does the law provide a mechanism for determining whether it is a reasonable approximation in any particular case.
In some instances, no estimate will be necessary or appropriate. When there has been a judicial finding or approval of an allocation between medical and nonmedical damages— in the form of either a jury verdict, court decree, or stipulation binding on all parties—that is the end of the matter. Ahlborn was a case of this sort. All parties (including the State of Arkansas) stipulated that approximately 6 percent of the plaintiff’s settlement represented payment for medical costs. 547 U. S., at 274. In other cases a settlement may not be reached and the judge or jury, in its findings, may make an allocation. With a stipulation or judgment under this procedure, the anti-lien provision protects from state demand the portion of a beneficiary’s tort recovery that the stipulation or judgment does not attribute to medical expenses.
North Carolina’s statute, however, operates to allow the State to take one-third of the total recovery, even if a proper stipulation or judgment attributes a smaller percentage to medical expenses. Consider the facts of Ahlborn. There, only $35,581.47 of the beneficiary’s settlement “constituted reimbursement for medical payments made.” Ibid. North Carolina’s statute, had it been applied in Ahlborn, would have allowed the State to claim $183,333.33 (one-third of the beneficiary’s $550,000 settlement). A conflict thus exists between North Carolina’s law and the Medicaid anti-lien provision.
The instant case, to be sure, is not quite so clear cut; for there was no allocation of the settlement by either judicial decree or binding stipulation of the parties. But the reasoning of Ahlborn and the design of the federal statute contemplate that possibility. When the State and the beneficiary are unable to agree on an allocation, Ahlborn noted, the parties could “submi[t] the matter to a court for decision.” Id., at 288.
The facts of the present case demonstrate why Ahlborn anticipated that a judicial or administrative proceeding would be necessary in that situation. Of the damages stemming from the injuries E. M. A. suffered at birth, it is apparent that a quite substantial share must be allocated to the skilled home care she will require for the rest of her life. See App. 112. It also may be necessary to consider how much E. M. A. and her parents could have expected to receive as compensation for their other tort claims had the suit proceeded to trial. An irrebuttable, one-size-fits-all statutory presumption is incompatible with the Medicaid Act’s clear mandate that a State may not demand any portion of a beneficiary’s tort recovery except the share that is attributable to medical expenses.
B
North Carolina offers responses to this reasoning, but none is persuasive.
First, the State asserts that it is doing nothing more than what Ahlborn said it could do: “adop[t] special rules and procedures for allocating tort settlements.” 547 U. S., at 288, n. 18. This misreads Ahlborn. There the Court, citing an amicus brief, referred to judicial proceedings some States had established for allocating tort settlements where necessary for insurance or tax purposes. See Brief for Association of Trial Lawyers of America, O. T. 2005, No. 04-1506, pp. 20-21 (citing Henning v. Wineman, 306 N. W. 2d 550 (Minn. 1981), and Rimes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 106 Wis. 2d 263, 316 N. W. 2d 348 (1982)). Those examples illustrated the kind of “special rules and procedures for allocating tort settlements” that Ahlborn considered. The decision did not endorse irrebuttable presumptions that designate some arbitrary fraction of a tort judgment to medical expenses in all cases.
Second, North Carolina contends that its law falls within the scope of a State’s traditional authority to regulate tort actions, including the amount of damages that a party may recover. This argument begins from a correct premise: In our federal system, there is no question that States possess the “traditional authority to provide tort remedies to their citizens” as they see fit. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 248 (1984). But North Carolina’s law is not an exercise of the State’s general authority to regulate its tort system. It does not limit tort plaintiffs’ ability to recover for certain types of nonmedical damages, and it does not say that medical damages are to be privileged above other damages in tort suits. All it seeks to do is to allocate the share of damages attributable to medical expenses in tort suits, brought by Medicaid beneficiaries. A statute that singles out Medicaid beneficiaries in this manner cannot avoid compliance with the federal anti-lien provision merely by relying upon a connection to an area of traditional state regulation.
Third, North Carolina suggests that even though its allocation of one-third of a tort recovery to medical expenses may be arbitrary, other methods for allocating a recovery would be just as arbitrary. In the State’s view there is no “ascertainable ‘true value’ of [a] case that should control what portion of any settlement is subject to the State’s third-party recovery rights.” Brief for Petitioner 26-27. As explained earlier, allocations, while to some extent perhaps not precise, need not be arbitrary. See supra, at 638. In some cases a judgment or stipulation binding on all parties will allocate the plaintiff’s recovery across different claims. Where no such judgment or stipulation exists, a fair allocation of such a settlement may be difficult to determine. Trial judges and trial lawyers, however, can find objective benchmarks to make projections of the damages the plaintiff likely could have proved had the case gone to trial.
In the instant case, for example, the North Carolina trial court approved the settlement only after finding that it constituted “fair and just compensation” to E. M. A. and her parents for her “severe and debilitating injuries”; for “medical and life care expenses” her condition will require; and for “severe emotional distress” from her injuries. App. 82. What portion of this lump-sum settlement constitutes “fair and just compensation” for each individual claim will depend both on how likely E. M. A. and her parents would have been to prevail on the claims at trial and how much they reasonably could have expected to receive on each claim if successful, in view of damages awarded in comparable tort cases.
This relates to North Carolina’s fourth argument: that it would be “wasteful, time consuming, and costly” to hold “frequent mini-trials” in order to divide a settlement between medical and nonmedical expenses. Brief for Petitioner 28. Even if that were true, it would not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the terms of the Medicaid anti-lien provision. And it is not true as a general proposition. States have considerable latitude to design administrative and judicial procedures to ensure a prompt and fair allocation of damages. Sixteen States and the District of Columbia provide for hearings of this sort, and there is no indication that they have proved burdensome. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28-29, and n. 7. See, e. g., Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Ann. § 14124.76(a) (West 2011); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§208.215.9-11 (2012); Tenn. Code Ann. §§71-5-117(g)-(i) (2012); In re E. B., 229 W. Va. 435, 462, 729 S. E. 2d 270, 297 (2012). Many of these States have established rebuttable presumptions and adjusted burdens of proof to ensure that speculative assessments of a plaintiff’s likely recovery do not defeat the State’s right to recover medical costs, a concern North Carolina raises. See, e. g., Haw. Rev. Stat. § 346-37(h) (2011 Cum. Supp.) (rebuttable presumption of a one-third allocation); Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 118E, § 22(e) (West 2010) (re-buttable presumption of full reimbursement); Okla. Stat., Tit. 63, § 5051.1(D)(1)(d) (West 2011) (rebuttable presumption of full reimbursement, “unless a more limited allocation of damages to medical expenses is shown by clear and convincing evidence”). Without holding that these rules are necessarily compliant with the federal statute, it can be concluded that they are more accurate than the procedure North Carolina has enacted.
The task of dividing a tort settlement is a familiar one. In a variety of settings, state and federal courts are called upon to separate lump-sum settlements or jury awards into categories to satisfy different claims to a portion of the moneys recovered. See supra, at 640. See also, e. g., Green v. Commissioner, 507 F. 3d 857, 867-868 (CA5 2007) (separation of compensatory from noncompensatory damages for tax purposes); Donnel v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 375, 386-387 (2001) (separation of employee severance bonus from other payments for tax purposes); In re Harrington, 306 B. R. 172, 182-183 (Bkrtcy. Ct. ED Tex. 2003) (separation of pain-and-suffering damages from other damages for purposes of bankruptcy exemption); Colorado Compensation Ins. Auth. v. Jones, 131 P. 3d 1074, 1077-1078 (Colo. App. 2005) (separation of economic from noneconomic damages for purposes of insurance subrogation); Spangler v. North Star Drilling Co., 552 So. 2d 673, 685 (La. App. 1989) (separation of past damages from future damages for purposes of calculating prejudgment interest). Indeed, North Carolina itself uses a judicial allocation procedure to ascertain the portion of a settlement subject to subrogation in a workers’ compensation suit. It instructs trial courts to
“consider the anticipated amount of prospective compensation the employer or workers’ compensation carrier is likely to pay to the employee in the future, the net recovery to plaintiff, the likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing at trial or on appeal, the need for finality in the litigation, and any other factors the court deems just and reasonable.” N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §97-10.2(j) (Lexis 2011).
North Carolina would be on sounder footing had it adopted a similar procedure for allocating Medicaid beneficiaries’ tort recoveries. It might also consider a different one along the lines of what other States have done in Medicaid reimbursement cases.
The State thus has ample means available to allocate Medicaid beneficiaries’ tort recoveries in an efficient manner that complies with federal law. Indeed, if States are concerned that .case-by-case judicial allocations will prove unwieldy, they may even be able to adopt éx ante administrative criteria for allocating medical and nonmedical expenses, provided that these criteria are backed by evidence suggesting that they are likely to yield reasonable results in the mine run of cases. What they cannot do is what North Carolina did here: adopt an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all allocation for all cases.
Fifth, and finally, North Carolina contends that in two documents—a July 2006 memorandum and a December 2009 letter responding to an inquiry from a member of North Carolina’s congressional delegation—the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services approved of North Carolina’s statutory scheme for Medicaid reimbursement. In the State’s view, these agency pronouncements are entitled to deference. See Brief for Petitioner 33-36 (citing Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984)).
The 2006 and 2009 documents, however, no longer reflect the agency’s position. See Brief for United States as Ami-cus Curiae 8-34. And at any rate, the documents are opinion letters, not regulations with the force of law. We have held that “[interpretations such as those in opinion letters— like interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law—do not warrant Chevron-style deference.” Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U. S. 576, 587 (2000). These documents are “‘entitled to respect’” in proportion to their “ ‘power to persuade.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944)). Insofar as the 2006 and 2009 documents approve of North Carolina’s statute, they lack persuasive force for the reasons discussed above.
* * *
The law here at issue, N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 108A-57, reflects North Carolina’s effort to comply with federal law and secure reimbursement from third-party tortfeasors for medical expenses paid on behalf of the State’s Medicaid beneficiaries. In some circumstances, however, the statute would permit the State to take a portion of a Medicaid beneficiary’s tort judgment or settlement not “designated as payments for medical care.” Ahlborn, 547 U. S., at 284. The Medicaid anti-lien provision, 42 U. S. C. § 1396p(a)(l), bars that result.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. 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. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations | What is the ideological direction of the decision reviewed by the Supreme Court? | [
"Conservative",
"Liberal",
"Unspecifiable"
] | [
0
] | sc |
KNOWLES, WARDEN v. MIRZAYANCE
No. 07-1315.
Argued January 13, 2009
Decided March 24, 2009
Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. de Nicola, Deputy State Solicitor General, and Kristofer Jorstad, Deputy Attorney General.
Charles M. Sevilla argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Eric Multhaup
Pamela Harris, John H. Blume, and Keir M. Weyble filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A federal court may grant a habeas corpus application arising from a state-court adjudication on the merits if 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.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). In this case, respondent Alexandre Mirzayance claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney recommended withdrawing his insanity defense. The California courts rejected this claim on state postconviction review. We must decide whether this decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. We hold that it was not. Whether reviewed under the standard of review set forth in § 2254(d)(1) or de novo, Mirzayance failed to establish that his counsel’s performance was ineffective, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984).
I
Mirzayance confessed that he stabbed his 19-year-old cousin nine times with a hunting knife and then shot her four times. At trial, he entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI). Under California law, when both of these pleas are entered, the court must hold a bifurcated trial, with guilt determined during the first phase and the viability of the defendant’s NGI plea during the second. Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1026(a) (West Supp. 2008). During the guilt phase of Mirzayance’s trial, he sought to avoid a conviction for first-degree murder by obtaining a verdict on the lesser included offense of second-degree murder. To that end, he presented medical testimony that he was insane at the time of the crime and was, therefore, incapable of the premeditation or deliberation necessary for a first-degree murder conviction. The jury nevertheless convicted Mirzayance of first-degree murder.
The trial judge set the NGI phase to begin the day after the conviction was entered but, on the advice of counsel, Mirzayance abandoned his NGI plea before it commenced. He would have borne the burden of proving his insanity during the NGI phase to the same jury that had just convicted him of first-degree murder. Counsel had planned to meet that burden by presenting medical testimony similar to that presented in the guilt phase, including evidence that Mirzayance was insane and incapable of premeditating or deliberating. Because the jury rejected similar evidence at the guilt phase (where the State bore the burden of proof), counsel believed a defense verdict at the NGI phase (where the burden was on the defendant) was unlikely. He planned, though, to have Mirzayance’s parents testify and thus provide an emotional account of Mirzayance’s struggles with mental illness to supplement the medical evidence of insanity. But on the morning that the NGI phase was set to begin, Mirzayance’s parents refused to testify. After consulting with co-counsel, counsel advised Mirzayance that he should withdraw the NGI plea. Mirzayance accepted the advice.
After he was sentenced, Mirzayance challenged his conviction in state postconviction proceedings. Among other allegations, he claimed that counsel’s recommendation to withdraw the NGI plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland. The California trial court denied the petition, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed without offering any reason for its rejection of this particular ineffective-assistance claim. People v. Mirzayance, Nos. B116856, B124764 (Mar. 31, 1999), App. to Pet. for Cert. 165-167, 200-201 (hereinafter App.). Mirzayance then filed an application for federal habeas relief under 28 U. S. C. §2254, which the District Court denied without an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and ordered an evidentiary hearing on counsel’s recommendation to withdraw the NGI plea. Mirzayance v. Hickman, 66 Fed. Appx. 676, 679-681 (CA9 2003). During that evidentiary hearing, a Magistrate Judge made factual findings that the District Court later adopted. Post-Remand Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge in No. CV 00-01388 DT (RZ) (CD Cal.), App. 38,68; Mirzayance v. Knowles, No. CV 00-1388 DT (RZ) (CD Cal., Nov. 15, 2004), id., at 35-36.
According to the Magistrate Judge, counsel’s strategy for the two-part trial was to seek a second-degree murder verdict in the first stage and to seek an NGI verdict in the second stage. This strategy faltered when the jury instead convicted Mirzayance of first-degree murder. In the circumstances of this case, the medical evidence that Mirzayance planned to adduce at the NGI phase essentially would have duplicated evidence that the jury had necessarily rejected in the guilt phase. First-degree murder in California includes any killing that is “willful, deliberate, and premeditated.” Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 189 (West 1999). To prove NGI, a defendant must show that he was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature of his act or of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the offense. See People v. Lawley, 27 Cal. 4th 102, 170, 38 P. 3d 461, 508 (2002). Highlighting this potential contradiction, the trial judge instructed the jury during the guilt phase that “[t]he word ‘deliberate,’ ” as required for a first-degree murder conviction, “means formed or arrived at or determined upon as a result of careful thought and weighing of considerations for and against the proposed course of action.” App. 48-49 (some internal quotation marks omitted).
When the jury found Mirzayance guilty of first-degree murder, counsel doubted the likelihood of prevailing on the NGI claim. According to the Magistrate Judge:
“The defense suspected that a jury’s finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [Mirzayance] had ‘deliberated’ and ‘premeditated’ his killing of [the victim] as a practical matter would cripple [Mirzayance’s] chances of convincing the jury later, during the sanity phase, that [Mirzayance] nevertheless ‘was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his ... act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense,’ Cal. Penal Code § 25(b)
“Any remaining chance of securing an NGI verdict . . . now depended (in [counsel’s] view) on presenting some ‘emotional [im]pact’ testimony by [Mirzayance’s] parents, which [counsel] had viewed as key even if the defense had secured a second-degree murder verdict at the guilt phase.” Id., at 50-51 (emphasis in original; capitalization omitted).
But, as the Magistrate Judge found, on the morning that the NGI phase was set to begin, Mirzayanee’s parents effectively refiised to testify:
“[T]he parents at least expressed clear reluctance to testify, which, in context, conveyed the same sense as a refusal.” Id., at 72 (emphasis in original).
Although the parties disputed this point, the parents’ later actions supported the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the parents’ reluctance to testify amounted to refusal:
“Corroborating the Court’s finding that [Mirzayance’s] parents indicated a strong disinclination to testify at the NGI phase are the facts that (1) they did not testify later at his sentencing hearing, and (2) the reason for their choosing not to do so ... is that... [it] would have been ‘too emotional’ for them. ... If weeks after the guilty verdict and the withdrawal of their son’s NGI plea, [Mirzayance’s] parents’ emotions still prevented them from testifying at the sentencing hearing, then surely those emotional obstacles to their testifying in the NGI phase would have been at least as potent, and probably more so.” Id., at 73 (emphasis in original).
The Magistrate Judge found that counsel made a carefully reasoned decision not to go forward with the NGI plea:
“[Counsel] carefully weighed his options before making his decision final; he did not make it rashly. . . . [Counsel’s] strategy at the NGI phase . . . depended entirely on the heartfelt participation of [Mirzayance’s] parents as witnesses. . . . Moreover, [counsel] knew that, although he had experts lined up to testify, their testimony had significant weaknesses. . . . [Counsel’s] NGI-phase strategy became impossible to attempt once [Mirzayance’s] parents... expressed... their reluctance to [testify] .... All [counsel] was left with were four experts, all of whom reached a conclusion — that [Mirzayance] did not premeditate and deliberate his crime — that the same jury about to hear the NGI evidence already had rejected under a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of proof. The experts were subject to other impeachment as well.... [Counsel] discussed the situation with his experienced co-counsel . . . who concurred in [counsel’s] proposal that he recommend to [Mirzayanee] the withdrawal of the NGI plea.” Id., at 69-71.
Based on these factual findings, the Magistrate Judge stated that, in his view, counsel's performance was not deficient.
Despite this determination, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the court was bound by the Court of Appeals’ remand order to determine only whether “ ‘there were tactical reasons for abandoning the insanity defense.’ ” Id., at 98 (quoting Hickman, 66 Fed. Appx., at 680). Even though the Magistrate Judge thought that counsel was reasonable in recommending that a very weak claim be dropped, the Magistrate Judge understood the remand order to mean that counsel’s performance was deficient if withdrawing the NGI plea would achieve no tactical advantage. The Magistrate Judge found that “[Mirzayanee] had nothing to lose” by going forward with the NGI phase of the trial, App. 100, and thus held, under the remand order, that counsel’s performance was deficient, ibid. As to prejudice, the Magistrate Judge concluded the court was similarly bound by the remand order because the Court of Appeals described the NGI defense as remaining “‘viable and strong.’” Id., at 98 (quoting Hickman, supra, at 681). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge found prejudice and recommended granting the writ of habeas corpus. The District Court accepted this recommendation and granted the writ.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Mirzayance v. Knowles, 175 Fed. Appx. 142, 143 (CA9 2006). It first stated that the lower court had misunderstood its remand order, which it described as requiring an examination of “counsel's reason for abandoning the insanity defense,” rather than as mandating that the District Court must find deficient performance if it found counsel had “nothing to lose” by pursuing the insanity defense. Ibid.; App. 98-99. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of deficient performance. According to the court, Mirzayance’s “parents did not refuse, but merely expressed reluctance to testify.” Knowles, 175 Fed. Appx., at 144. And because they may have been willing, “[c]ompetent counsel would have attempted to persuade them to testify, which counsel here admits he did not.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals also “disagree [d] that counsel’s decision was carefully weighed and not made rashly.” Ibid.
Furthermore, even though it had suggested that the District Court unnecessarily evaluated counsel’s strategy under a “nothing to lose” standard, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court in large part because Mirzayance’s “counsel did not make a true tactical choice” based on its view that counsel had nothing to gain by dropping the NGI defense. Ibid. The court held that “[reasonably effective assistance would put on the only defense available, especially in a case such as this where there was significant potential for success.” Id., at 145 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court of Appeals also found prejudice because, in its view, “[i]f counsel had pursued the insanity phase of the trial, there is a reasonable probability... that the jury would have found Mirzayance insane.” Ibid.
We granted the petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and remanded for further consideration in light of Carey v. Musladin, 549 U. S. 70 (2006), which held that a state court had not “ ‘unreasonably] applied] clearly established Federal law’ ” when it declined to apply our precedent concerning state-sponsored courtroom practices to a case involving spectator conduct at trial, id., at 76-77. Knowles v. Mirzayance, 549 U. S. 1199 (2007). On remand, the Court of Appeals concluded that its decision was unaffected by Musladin and again affirmed the District Court’s grant of habeas corpus. App. 4. The Court of Appeals reiterated the same analysis on which it had relied prior to this Court’s remand, again finding that the California court had unreasonably applied clearly established federal law because defense counsel’s failure to pursue the insanity defense constituted deficient performance as it “secured . .. [n]o actual tactical advantage.” Id., at 8. We granted certiorari, 554 U. S. 932 (2008).
II
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1), a federal court may not grant a state prisoner’s habeas application unless the relevant state-court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Here, the relevant state-court decision is the California Court of Appeal’s decision denying state habeas relief.
We conclude that the state court’s decision to deny Mirzayance’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim did not violate clearly established federal law. The Court of Appeals reached a contrary result based, in large measure, on its application of an improper standard of review — it blamed counsel for abandoning the NGI claim because there was nothing to lose by pursuing it. But this Court has held on numerous occasions that it is not “an unreasonable application of” “clearly established Federal law” for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by this Court. See Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U. S. 120, 123 (2008) (per curiam); Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U. S. 465, 478 (2007); Musladin, supra, at 76-77. This Court has never established anything akin to the Court of Appeals’ “nothing to lose” standard for evaluating Strickland claims. Indeed, Mirzayance himself acknowledges that a “nothing to lose” rule is “unrecognized by this Court.” Brief for Respondent 28. And the Court of Appeals did not cite any Supreme Court decision establishing a “nothing to lose” standard in any of its three opinions in this case. See App. 3-12; Knowles, 175 Fed. Appx. 142; Hickman, 66 Fed. Appx. 676.
With no Supreme Court precedent establishing a “nothing to lose” standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, habeas relief cannot be granted pursuant to § 2254(d)(1) based on such a standard. Instead, such relief may be granted only if the state-court decision unreasonably applied the more general standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims established by Strickland, in which this Court held that a defendant must show both deficient performance by counsel and prejudice in order to prove that he has received ineffective assistance of counsel, 466 U. S., at 687. Indeed, this Court has repeatedly applied that standard to evaluate ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims where there is no other Supreme Court precedent directly on point. See, e.g., Van Patten, supra, at 125 (evaluating claim under Strickland where no Supreme Court precedent established that any other standard applied to the “novel factual context” before the Court); Schriro, supra, at 478 (evaluating claim under general Strickland standard where no Supreme Court precedent addressed the particular “situation in which a client interferes with counsel’s efforts to present mitigating evidence to a sentencing court”).
The question “is not whether a federal court believes the state court’s determination” under the Strickland standard “was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable — a substantially higher threshold.” Schriro, supra, at 473. And, because the Strickland standard is a general standard, a state court has even more latitude to reasonably determine that a defendant has not satisfied that standard. See Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U. S. 652, 664 (2004) (“[E]valuating whether a rule application was unreasonable requires considering the rule’s specificity. The more general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations”).
Under the doubly deferential judicial review that applies to a Strickland claim evaluated under the §2254(d)(1) standard, see Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U. S. 1, 5-6 (2003) (per curiam), Mirzayance’s ineffective-assistance claim fails. It was not unreasonable for the state court to conclude that his defense counsel’s performance was not deficient when he counseled Mirzayance to abandon a claim that stood almost no chance of success. As explained more fully below, this Court has never required defense counsel to pursue every claim or defense, regardless of its merit, viability, or realistic chance for success. See also infra, at 127.
Ill
Even if Mirzayanee’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim were eligible for de novo review, it would still fail. Strickland requires a defendant to establish deficient performance and prejudice. 466 U. S., at 687. Mirzayance can establish neither.
Mirzayance has not shown “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id., at 687-688. “The proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” Id., at 688. “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential,” and “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id., at 689. “[Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.” Id., at 690.
Here, Mirzayance has not shown that his counsel violated these standards. Rather, his counsel merely recommended the withdrawal of what he reasonably believed was a claim doomed to fail. The jury had already rejected medical testimony about Mirzayance’s mental state in the guilt phase, during which the State carried its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Magistrate Judge explained this point:
“All [counsel] was left with were four experts, all of whom reached a conclusion — that [Mirzayance] did not premeditate and deliberate his crime — that the same jury about to hear the NGI evidence already had rejected under a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of proof. The experts were subject to other impeachment as well.” App. 71.
In fact, the Magistrate Judge found that counsel “convincingly detailed ways in which [the experts] could have been impeached, for overlooking or minimizing facts which showcased [Mirzayance’s] clearly goal-directed behavior.” Id., at 70.
In the NGI phase, the burden would have switched to Mirzayance to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. Mirzayanee’s counsel reasonably believed that there was almost no chance that the same jury would have reached a different result when considering similar evidence, especially with Mirzayance bearing the burden of proof. Furthermore, counsel knew he would have had to present this defense without the benefit of the parents’ testimony, which he believed to be his strongest evidence. See ibid. (“[Counsel’s] strategy at the NGI phase had been to appeal to the jury in one or both of two ways that depended entirely on the heartfelt participation of [Mirzayance’s] parents as witnesses”). Counsel reasonably concluded that this defense was almost certain to lose.
The Court of Appeals took the position that the situation was not quite so dire because the parents “merely expressed reluctance to testify.” Id., at 7; Knowles, 175 Fed. Appx., at 144. It explained that “[c]ompetent counsel would have attempted to persuade them to testify.” App. 7; Knowles, supra, at 144. But that holding is in tension with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and applies a more demanding standard than Strickland prescribes. The Magistrate Judge noted that the parents “conveyed the same sense as a refusal.” App. 72. Indeed, the Magistrate Judge found that the parents “did not testify later at [Mirzayance’s) sentencing hearing” because it “would have been 'too emotional’ for them.” Id., at 73 (quoting testimony from evidentiary hearing). Competence does not require an attorney to browbeat a reluctant witness into testifying, especially when the facts suggest that no amount of persuasion would have succeeded. Counsel’s acceptance of the parents’ “convey[anee] [of]... a refusal,” id., at 72, does not rise to the high bar for deficient performance set by Strickland.
Mirzayance’s failure to show ineffective assistance of counsel is confirmed by the Magistrate Judge’s finding that “[counsel] carefully weighed his options before making his decision final; he did not make it rashly.” App. 69. The Magistrate Judge explained all of the factors that counsel considered — many of which are discussed above — and noted that counsel “discussed the situation with his experienced co-counsel” before making it. Id., at 71. In making this finding, the Magistrate Judge identified counsel’s decision as essentially an informed decision “made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options.” Strickland, 466 U. S., at 690. As we stated in Strickland, such a decision is “virtually unchallengeable.” Ibid.
Without even referring to the Magistrate Judge’s finding, the Court of Appeals “disagree[d] that counsel’s decision was carefully weighed and not made rashly.” App. 7; Knowles, supra, at 144. In its view, “counsel acted on his subjective feelings of hopelessness without even considering the potential benefit to be gained in persisting with the plea.” App. 8; Knowles, supra, at 144-145. But courts of appeals may not set aside a district court’s factual findings unless those findings are clearly erroneous. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a); Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564, 573-574 (1985). Here, the Court of Appeals failed even to mention the clearly-erroneous standard, let alone apply it, before effectively overturning the lower court’s factual findings related to counsel’s behavior.
In light of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, the state court’s rejection of Mirzayance’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was consistent with Strickland. The Court of Appeals insisted, however, that “ ‘[Reasonably effective assistance’ required here that counsel assert the only defense available . . . .” App. 8; see also Knowles, supra, at 145. But we are aware of no “prevailing professional norms” that prevent counsel from recommending that a plea be withdrawn when it is almost certain to lose. See Strickland, supra, at 688. And in this case, counsel did not give up “the only defense available.” Counsel put on a defense to first-degree murder during the guilt phase. Counsel also defended his client at the sentencing phase. The law does not require counsel to raise every available non-frivolous defense. See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U. S. 745, 751 (1983); cf. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 533 (2003) (explaining, in case involving similar issue of counsel’s responsibility to present mitigating evidence at sentencing, that “Strickland does not require counsel to investigate every conceivable line of mitigating evidence no matter how unlikely the' effort would be to assist the defendant... [or even] to present mitigating evidence at sentencing in every case”). Counsel also is not required to have a tactical reason — above and beyond a reasonable appraisal of a claim’s dismal prospects for success — for recommending that a weak claim be dropped altogether. Mirzayance has thus failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was deficient.
In addition, Mirzayance has not demonstrated that he suffered prejudice from his counsel’s performance. See Strickland, 466 U. S., at 691 (“An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment”). To establish prejudice, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id., at 694. To prevail on his ineffective-assistance claim, Mirzayance must show, therefore, that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would have prevailed on his insanity defense had he pursued it. This Mirzayance cannot do. It was highly improbable that a jury, which had just rejected testimony about Mirzayance’s mental condition when the State bore the burden of proof, would have reached a different result when Mirzayance presented similar evidence at the NGI phase. See supra, at 125.
IV
Mirzayance has not shown that the state court’s conclusion that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” under §2254. In fact, he has not shown ineffective assistance at all. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to deny the petition.
It is so ordered.
Justice Scalia, Justice Soutee, and Justice Ginsburg join all but Part II of this opinion.
At best, the Court of Appeals’ characterization of counsel’s efforts to persuade the parents to testify is misleading. According to the Magistrate Judge, counsel testified that he did attempt to persuade the parents to testify but that their response ‘“was kind of flat, and I had no influence over them.’” App. 54 (quoting testimony from evidentiary hearing). In his efforts to convince the parents to testify, counsel told them that Mirzayance “had no chance of securing an NGI verdict without the ‘emotional quality from nonprofessional witnesses’ that Mr. and Mrs. Mirzayance’s testimony could provide; and ‘that they were abandoning their son.’ ” Id., at 53-54 (same).
Before the Court of Appeals, Mirzayance contended that the standard of review set forth in § 2254(d)(1) should not apply to his case. See Brief for Appellee in No. 04-57102 (CA9), pp. 28-29, 33. Before this Court, however, Mirzayance contends that the Court of Appeals correctly applied § 2254(d) to his claim. See Brief for Respondent 27, 32. Mirzayance did question whether the California Court of Appeal’s denial of his claim should receive as much deference as the “prototypical” state-court adjudication “involv[ing] both a reasoned, written opinion and an adequate development of the factual record in support of the claims.” Id., at 33. Mirzayance thus contends that “the usual § 2254(d) deferential approach must be modified and adapted” in evaluating his claim. Id., at 34. Nonetheless, because Mirzayance has not argued that § 2254(d) is entirely inapplicable to his claim or that the state court failed to reach an adjudication on the merits, we initially evaluate his claim through the deferential lens of § 2254(d). See United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U. S. 843, 855, n. 3 (1996) (finding that party abandoned issue by failing to address it in the party’s brief on the merits); Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U. S. 513, 527 (1994) (same).
In addition, we do not decide whether the Court of Appeals was correct in finding that an evidentiary hearing on Mirzayance’s claim was required. See Mirzayance v. Hickman, 66 Fed. Appx. 676, 679-681 (CA9 2003). Mirzayance’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim fails even under the facts presented at the evidentiary hearing.
Although the Court of Appeals implicitly disavowed the “nothing to lose” standard applied by the District Court and Magistrate Judge, see App. 5; Mirzayance v. Knowles, 175 Fed. Appx. 142, 143 (CA9 2006), it nevertheless concluded that “[n]o actual tactical advantage was to be gained” by counsel’s withdrawal of the insanity defense, App. 8; Knowles, supra, at 144. Finding that counsel is deficient by abandoning a defense where there is nothing to gain from that abandonment is equivalent to finding that counsel is deficient by declining to pursue a strategy where there is nothing to lose from pursuit of that strategy.
Mirzayance has no complaints about the sentencing phase since he received the lowest possible sentence for his first-degree murder conviction. California authorizes three possible sentences for murder: death, life imprisonment without parole, and imprisonment for 25 years to life. Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190(a) (West 1999). Mirzayance was sentenced to 25 years to life plus 4 years for a weapons enhancement. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the reason, if any, given by the court for granting the petition for certiorari. | What reason, if any, does the court give for granting the petition for certiorari? | [
"case did not arise on cert or cert not granted",
"federal court conflict",
"federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question",
"putative conflict",
"conflict between federal court and state court",
"state court conflict",
"federal court confusion or uncertainty",
"state court confusion or uncertainty",
"federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty",
"to resolve important or significant question",
"to resolve question presented",
"no reason given",
"other reason"
] | [
10
] | sc |
HYNES, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, v. GRIMES PACKING CO. et al.
No. 24.
Argued October 21, 1948.
Decided May 31, 1949.
Roger P. Marquis argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Vanech, Stanley M. Silver-berg and S. Billingsley Hill.
Frank L. Mechem and W. C. Arnold argued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief was Edward F. Medley. . Charles A. Horsky was also of counsel for respondents.
Felix S. Cohen, James E. Curry and Henry Cohen filed a brief on behalf of the Native Village of Karluk et al., as amici curiae, urging reversal.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Secretary of the Interior on May 22, 1943, issued Public Land Order 128. It is set out in full below. In this case the significant part of No. 128 is that the Secretary included in the reservation, by paragraph 2, adjacent tidelands and coastal waters along tht entire shore line of the uplands that touched Shelikof StrL H between Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula. The authority of the Secretary to utilize presidential power in the designation of this reservation out of public lands in Alaska flows from a delegation to the Secretary of presidential power to withdraw or reserve public lands and revoke or modify prior reservations. Executive Order No. 9146, of April 24, 1942, 1 C. F. R., Cum. Supp. 1149. The presidential power over reservations is made specific by the Act of June 25, 1910. Another statutory provision, however, is the principal basis for Order 128. This is § 2 of the Act of May 1-, 1936, 49 Stat. 1250. This act was passed to extend to Alaska the benefits of the Wheeler-Howard Act of June 18, 1934, 48 Stat. 984, and to provide for the designation of Indian reservations in Alaska. As § 2 is important in our discussion, the pertinent provisions are set out in full:
“Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to designate as an Indian reservation any area of land which has been reserved for the use and occupancy of Indians or Eskimos by section 8 of the Act of May 17, 1884 (23 Stat. 26), or by section 14 or section 15 of the Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1101), or which has been heretofore reserved under any executive order and placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior or any bureau thereof, together with additional public lands adjacent thereto, within the Territory of Alaska, or any other public lands which are actually occupied by Indians or Eskimos within said Territory: Provided, That the designation by the Secretary of the Interior of any such area of land as a reservation shall be effective only upon its approval by the vote, by secret ballot, of a majority of the Indian or. Eskimo residents thereof who vote at a special election duly called by the Secretary of the Interior upon thirty days’ notice:'"'. . . .’’
The Native Village of Karluk held a meeting on May 23, 1944, and accepted “the proposed Indian Reservation for this village. The adoption of said Reservation' passed by a vote of 46 for and 0 against. 11 of the eligible voters were absent.” See note 26, infra. Under § 19 of the Wheeler-Howard Act the Alaskan aborigines are classified as Indians.
On March 22 and August 27, 1946, the Secretary of the Interior amended the Alaská Fisheries General Regulations, 50 C. F. R., 1946 Supp., § 208.23, that related to the commercial fishing for salmon in the Kodiak Area Fisheries by the addition of a subsection (r), reading as follows:
“(r) All waters within 3,000 feet of the shores of Karluk Reservation (Public Land Order No. 128, May 22, .1943), beginning at a point on the east shore of Shelikof Strait, ,on Kodiak Island, latitude 57°32'30// N., thence northeasterly along said shore to a point 57°39'40".
“The foregoing prohibition shall not apply to fishing by natives in possession of said reservation, nor to fishing by other persons under authority granted by said natives (49 Stat. 1250; 48 U. S.-C. 358a). Such authority shall be granted only by or pursuant to ordinance of the Native Village of Karluk, approved by the Secretary of the Interior or his duly authorized representative.” 11 Fed. Reg. 3105, 9528.
The authority for the regulation is given as 34 Stat. 263 and 478, as amended by the Act of June 6, 1924, 43 Stat. 464, an Act'for the protection of the fisheries of Alaska, known-as the White Act. As the controlling section of this statute also is important, it is set out here, 44 Stat. 752:
“Section 1. That for the purpose of protecting and conserving the fisheries of the United States in all waters of Alaska the Secretary of Commerce from time to time may set apart and reserve fishing areas in any of the waters of Alaska over which the United States has jurisdiction, and within such areas may establish closed seasons during which fishing may be limited or prohibited as he may prescribe. Under this authority to limit fishing in any area so set apart and reserved the Secretary may (a) fix the size and character of nets, boats, traps, or other gear and appliances to be used therein; (b) limit the catch of fish to be taken fro.m any area; (c) make such regulations as to time, means, methods, and extent of fishing as he may deem advisable. From and after the creation of any such fishing area and during the time fishing is prohibited therein it shall be unlawful to fish therein or to operate therein any boat, seine, trap, or other gear or apparatus for the .purpose of taking fish; arid from and after the creation of any such fishing area in which limited fishing is permitted such fishing shall be carried on only during the time, in the manner, to the extent, and in conformity with such rules and regulations as the Secretary prescribes under the authority herein given: Provided, That every such regulation made by the Secretary of Commerce shall be of general application within the particular area to which it applies, and that no exclusive or several right of fishery shall be granted therein, nor shall any citizpn of the United States be denied the right to take, prepare, cure, or preserve fish or shellfish in any area of the waters of Alaska where fishirig is permitted by the Secretary of Commerce. . . .” (See for definition of “several,” 2 Bl. Com. 39-40.)
These are the statutes and orders that created the situation that led to this litigation.
The issuance of the White Act regulation of March 22, 1946, brought concern to the commercial fishing, interests of Alaska. This w{is because of its drastic penalties. Sep note 49, infra. The native village of Karluk spoken of in Order No. 128 establishing the reservation is situated ón the Karluk; River, long recognized as one of the most important salmon spawning streams of Alaska. The natives live at its mouth on Shelikof Strait. There the salmon must congregate from the Strait to enter the channel of the river leading to their spawning grounds in the interior of Kodiak Island. The waters included in the reservation are those, stretching eight miles along the coast north and south of the mouth, 3,000 feet into the -Strait. Thus the best of the Karluk salmon fishery is put into the reservation by Order ,No. 128. For an understanding of the locality, a sketch map is appended.
The importance of the Karluk fishery will be appreciated by reference to a few of the facts in connection with ' When Russia ceded Alaska to the United. States in 1867, 15 Stat'. 539, Karluk was already well known as an abundant salmon fishery. By 1885 the salmon canneries were flourishing and Bancroft reports the Karluk pack at 36,000 cases out of a total of 65,000. The production continued large. The red salmon was most prolific. There were variations in the catch but it was always valuable. In later years, the fluctuations continued and other varieties increased relatively.
None of the respondent companies have packing plants at Karluk. All are, however, on Kodiak Island, which is around 100 miles long and 50 broad, and within fishing distance of the reservation waters. There is a fish refrigeration plant on the river. These canners^ 1iaye canned fish from these waters for from seven to twenty-four years. The percentage of each canner’s pack" that comes from the reserved waters is so large thatdhe trial court found irreparable injury to the packers if they could not obtain the catch of the reservation. . . no other replacement source of such salmon for -their canneries on Kodiak Island is available to them.” The canners’ investment is substantial, running from two to five hundred thousand dollars respectively. The fishing is done by men who own their own three- to four-man boats, use similar company boats or operate under boat-buying contracts. Prices for the catch vary for these classifications. These packers employ over four hundred fishermen, chiefly residents of Alaska, and over six hundred cannery employees, chiefly nonresidents.
The fishing season at Karluk begins around June 1 and continues intermittently, depending upon the run of fish, until Sept. 30. After the issuance of § 208.23 (r) restricting the fishery at Karluk Reservation to Karluk natives and licensees, respondents brought this action against the Regional Director for the Territory of Alaska of the Fish and Wildlife Service to permanently enjoin the exclusion of their fishermen from the reservation on the ground that neither regulation § 208.23 (r) nor Public Land Order No. 128- legally closed the fishery of the coastal waters to respondents. The District Court granted the permanent injunction and held invalid both the regulation and the land order. 67 F. Supp. 43. On the same grounds the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the order for permanent injunction. 165 F.' 2d 323.
I.
(a) At the outset the United States-contends that the Secretary of the Interior is an indispensable party who must be joined as a party defendant in order to give the .District Court jurisdiction of this suit. In Williams v. Fanning, 332 U. S. 490, the test as to whether a superior official can be dispensed with as a party was stated to be whether “the decree which is entered will effectively, grant the relief desired by expending itself" on the subordinate official who is before the court.” P. 494. Such is the' precise situation here. Nothing is required of the Secretary; he does not have to perform any act,.either directly or indirectly. Respondents merely seek an injunction restraining petitioner from interfering with their fishing. No affirmative action is required of petitioner, and if he and his subordinates cease their interference, respondents have been accorded all the relief which they seek. The issues of the instant suit can be settled by a decree between these parties without having the’ Secretary of the Interior as a party to the litigation.
(b) Petitioner, Regional Director for the Territory of Alaska of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Interior Department, is charged with the duty of enforcing the acts of Congress relating to the fisheries of Alaska and regulations issued thereunder. The District Court found that since March 22, 1946, the effective date of § 208.23 (r) of the Alaska Fisheries General Regulations, petitioner has continually threatened the seizure of all boats and éqúipment used to fish in the waters covered by this regulation to respondents’ substantial and irreparable loss, and that the seasonal run of salmon in the reservation waters was essential for respondents’ profitable operation. From the following facts it will be seen that there is sufficient evidence to support these findings.
After the promulgation of the fishery regulation, § 208.23 (r), the Warden for the Fish and Wildlife Service qn Kodiak Island, one of petitioner’s subordinate agents, repeatedly informed officials of the canneries that the regulation would be enforced and. that the necessary steps would be taken to prosecute any violations. He communicated to the representatives of the canneries the contents of a telegram in which petitioner directed that a case to test the regulation be arranged for the opening day of the fishing season. The contents of this telegram were relayed to the headquarters in Seattle of the Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., a trade association of the canned salmon packers of which all but one of respondents are members. Thence the information was distributed to all interested parties. ■ The Kodiak warden then reiterated to the cannery operators on that island his intention to enforce the regulation even though his fo?ce and equipment were inadequate for the purpose.
Thereafter two officers of the Indian Service were appointed special agents for the Fish and Wildlife Service to assist in the enforcement of the fishing regulations issued by the Interior Department. They arrived at Karluk June 24, 1946. These two deputies were armed and maintained a boat patrol in the waters of the reservation. They checked the names of boats fishing in the waters of the reservation against the permits issued by the village of Karluk. No boats were allowed inside the area which had been restricted for beach seining by vote of the Indian meeting of May 23, 1944, and which was marked off by buoys.
- If respondents show that they are without an adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury unless the enforcement of the alleged invalid regulation is restrained, a civil court'will enjoin. While ordinarily criminal prosecutions will not be restrained even under an invalid statute, a civil action will lie in exceptional circumstances that make an injunction necessary to effectually protect property rights.
The facts heretofore detailed as to the investments of respondents in canneries and fishing equipment and their established activities in the waters of the reservation make clear the serious effect on them of exclusion from the reservation. It is not a threat of a single prosecution, as in the Spielman case, but an ousting of respondents and their employees from the fishing grounds unless each individual person takes a fishing license. Under the findings the respondénts could not operate profitably if prohibited from fishing in the reservation area. Many fishermen may stay away from, the grounds for fear of punishment. In the pursuit of their .otherwise lawful business respondents are threatened with criminal prosecution should they fish in the waters of the Karluk Reservation without a permit from the native village. For the violation of the applicable regulation under the White Act, severe penalties are imposed, including fine, imprisonment, the. summary seizure of boats, haul, gear, equipment, and their forfeiture to the United States. These sanctions deny to respondents an adequate remedy at law, for to challenge the regulation in an ordinary criminal proceeding is to hazard -a loss against the payment of a license fee and compliance with the fishing rules of the natives. Yet to stay out of the reservation prevents the profitable operation of the canneries. In such a sitúaHon-a majority of the Court thinks that the “danger of irreparable loss is both great arid immediate” arid properly calls forth the jurisdiction of the court of equity.
II.
Respondents sought this injunction forbiddirig criminal proceedings aimed^ at excluding them from fishing in the coastal waters of K'arluk Reservation.on-the ground that Public Land Order No. 128, note 1, supra, Was invalid as a whole and particularly because of thé inclusion of tidelarids and coastal Waters by § 2 of the order.
Respondents attack in their complaint the validity of the entire order because “no part, of the land area involved had been withdrawn by Executive Order and placed urider the jurisdiction of the Department ofrthe. Interior prior to May 1, 1936, as required by the -Act of May 1, 1936.” This position has not been pressed or decided. The final order for an injunction against petitioner does not include any ruling on that point..
Nor do we think the authority of the Secretary of the .Interior to establish the Karluk Reservation, Public Land Order 128, by virtue of the use and occupancy of the area 'by the natives under § 8 of the Act of May 17, 1884, .23 Stat. 26, or §§14 or 15 of the Act of March 3, 1891, 26Btat. 1101, need be decided. While the point is referred to in the briefs, no such issue was tendered by the complaint; no such point was.raised by the assignments of error; the question was specifically pretermitted by the-opinion of the Court of Appeals, 165 F. 2d at 325.; it is not included in the questions presented by the petition for certiorari and is not relied upon by the respondents to require affirmance of the Court of Appeals decree.^
(a) The validity of Public Land Order 128 depends in this case on the scope of the power granted, to the Secretary to establish this reservation by the language of § 2. of the Act of May 1, 1936, supra, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to designate as a. reservation “any other public lands which are actually occupied by Indians or Eskimos within said Territory.” An administrative order is presumptively valid.
In this instance, the Secretary acted under a.statute, § 2, Act' of May 1, 1936, and through delegation of presidential authority. This delegation in turn rested on the Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 847. This chain of delegated authority for the allocation of public lands in Alaska retains for future congressional'a'ction the power for the ultimate disposition of the. property, land and water, within the boundaries of the reservation; Withdrawals under the Act of June 25, 1910, are “temporary” and “until revoked by him or by an Act of Congress.”
The Wheeler-Howard Act of June 18, 1934, “To conserve and develop. Indian lands and resources,” which was. extended to the Territory of Alaska by § 1 of the Act of May 1, 1936, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to restore to tribal ownership only the remaining surplus lands of any Indian reservation theretofore opened for sale or other disposition. It did not authorize the creation of reservations of any kind. Its only reference to acquisition of lands by or for Indians is in § 5 where appropriations are authorized for that purpose. This section is inapplicable here.
'Section 2 of the extending act, set out at the beginning of this opinion, page 91, supra, gives no power to the Secretary to dispose finally of federal lands. By the new section he isiauthorized simply “to designate as an Indian reservation” any other public lands which are actually occupied by Indians or Eskimos within said Territory.. There is no language in the various acts, in their legislative history, or in Land Order 128, from which an inference pan be drawn that the Secretary has or has claimed power to convey any permanent title or right to the Indians in the lands or waters of Karluk Reservation. Rather the contrary is true. In the Act of May 14,1898,30 Stat. 409, 48 U. S. 0. § 411, “Extending the homestead laws and providing for right of way .for railroads ip the District of Alaska,' and for other pprposes,” there is the express proviso that nothing contained in the Act “shall be construed as impairing in any degree the title of any State that may hereafter be erected out of the Térritory of Alaska, or any part thereof, to tide lands and beds of any of its navigable waters, or the right of such State to regulate the use thereof, nor the right of the United States to resume possession of such lands, it being declared that all such rights shall continue to be held by the United States in trust for the people of any State or States which .may hereafter be erected out of said Territory. The term ‘navigable waters/ as herein used, shall be held to include all tidal waters up to the line of ordinary high tide and all nontidal waters navigable in fact up to the line of ordinary high-water mark.” Indeed the United States affirms in its brief that Karluk Reservation- is merely a reservation “for a particular governmental use,” not a disposal of the-area. The Government says it is like Sioux Tribe v. United States, 316 U. S. 317, not like United States v. Holt Bank, 270 U. S. 49.
An Indian reservation created by Executive Order of the President conveys no right of use or occupancy to the beneficiaries beyond the pleasure of Congress or the President. Such fights may be terminated by the unilateral action of the United States without legal liability for compensation in any form even though Congress has permitted suit on the claim. Sioux Tribe v. United States, 316 U. S. 317; see United States v. Santa Fe Pacific R. Co., 314 U. S. 339 at 347. When a reservation is established by a treaty ratified by the Senate or a statute, the quality of the rights thereby secured to the occupants of the reservation depends upon the language or purpose of the congressional action. Since Congress, under :the Constitution, § 3 of Art. IV, has the power to dispose. of the lands of the United States, it may convey to or recognize such rights in the Indians, even a title equal to fee simple, as in its judgment is just. Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U. S. 335, 339, 340. When .Congress intends to delegate power to turn over lands to the Indians permanently, Qne would expect to and doubtless would find definite indications of such a purpose.
In the present case a determination-of the power delegated to the Secretary of the Interior by the 'Wheeler-Howard Act of June 18,1934, and § 2 of the Act of May 1,1936, is important. It is-important for the reason that a statute that authorizes permanent disposition of federal property would be most strictly construed to avoid inclusion of fisheries by implication. Petitioner argues for a holding that he power granted covers water as well as land. If that power were broad enough to enable the Secretary to designate nonrevocable or permanent reservations of all Alaska fishing grounds for the sole benefit of "natives living in villages adjacent to the fisheries, it might place in his hands the power to grant the natives the right to exclude all other fishermen from the fisheries. In this present case, for example, it' might mean that the native residents of the Karluk Reservation would have the perpetual use and enjoyment of this valuable Karluk fishery for themselves and their licensees. On May 23,1944, a year after Public Land Order 128, the petitioner shows that there were 57 residents eligible to vote for approval of the designation of the reservation. As indicated by the cases hereinbefore cited, a recognition of such ownership in Indians might require just compensation to them of the fair value of the fishery, if the United States should desire hereafter to reopen the area, to the public under its regulations. There is much less reason to read such power of permanent disposition by the Secretary into § 2 than there was to read it into the President’s “implied grant of power” to create reservations. United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459, 475. It would take specific and unambiguous legislation to cause us to rule that Congress intended to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to alienate the Alaska fisheries permanently from public control. The argument that Congress did not intend to authorize the designation of water or fisheries as a part of an Indian reservation has behind it the unarticulated premise that the United States must have complete power to protect, improve and regulate for the good of all our people these unrivalled sea fisheries with their wealth of food. It loses much of its force by our conclusion that Alaskan Indian reservations established or enlarged under § 2 are subject to the unfettered will of Congress.
(b) An argument that the reservation is a nonrevocable grant can be made. Under the Act of June 18, 1934, § 16, applicable to Alaska, see § 13, an Indian tribe was authorized to adopt a constitution and by-laws for its government. This was done by the Karluk Reservation Indians. There is a phrase in the section that has color of recognition of ownership of tribal lands in the Indians. It reads as follows:
“In. addition to all powers vested in any Indian tribe or tribal council by existing law, the constitution adopted by said tribe shall also vest in such tribe or its tribal council the following rights and powers: . . . to prevent the sale, disposition, lease, or encumbrance of tribal lands; interests in lands, or other tribal assets without the consent of 'the tribe; . . . 48 Stat. 987. -.
We think, however, in view of the breadth of the coverage of the Wheeler-Howard Act that this language would be effective only where there has been specific recognition by the United States of Indian rights, to control absolutely tribal lands.
Persuasive of this conclusion is that the bill when originally proposed by Interior provided in § 7 of Title III that “Title to any land acquired pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be taken in the name of the. United States in trust for the Indian tribe or community for whom the land is acquired, but title may be transferred by the Secretary to such community under the conditions set forth in this Act.” The italicized words were omitted when this section was incorporated into § 5 of the Wheeler-Howard Act. See Hearings before House Committee on Indian Affairs, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., on H. R. 7902, p, 9. .
Turning to § 2 of the Act of May 1, 1936, the strongest argument for the nonrevocability of a reservation created under § 2 of that Act comes from a letter of the Secretary of the Interior printed in the House and Senate Reports on the bill which became the Act in- question. The reports, speaking of § 2, said:
“This provision in reality carries out the promise Of this • Government contained in its act approved on May 17, 1884 (23 Stat. 26), as follows:
“ ‘Provided, That the'Indians or other persons in said district shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually.; in their use or occupation or now' claimed by them but the terms under which such' persons may acquire title to such lands is reserved for future legislation by Congress.’ ” H. R. Rep. bfo. 2244, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 3.
The pertinent part of the letter is set out below. The legislation was, of course, a fulfillment of the aid foreshadowed in the statutes referred to in the letter. Such references to general legislation on public lands in the huge Territory of Alaska, however, cannot be treated as an adequate basis for courts to declare that power was. given the Secretary of the Interior to dispose finally of ■Alaska lands. The first section of the Act of May 1 was a mere amendment of the Wheeler-Howard Act. to bring Alaska under its coverage. The Wheeler-Howard Act did not-authorize .the creation of Indian reservations. Section 2 of the act extending the Wheeler-Howard.Act to Alaska was intended to permit the organization of the Alaska natives so that they could avail themselves of the earlier Act. It cannot be said, we think, that such reservations may be permanent or nonrevocable. A reading of § 2 will show .that there are no words with the connotation of recognition or conveyance of title. There , are no words, such as appear in other statutes, res&Fving the right of exploration, discovery and claim for precious, metals and valuable minerals. There is no discussion in the reports or the debates that show a definite. intention of anyone to part with, public property to establish an Alaskan Indian communal system. Under such circumstances, we think the land and water reservations created under § 2 are reservations at will.
(c) Wjs are convinced that § 2 of the Act of May 1, :1936, authorizes, the Secretary of the Interior to include in the Karluk Reservation the waters described in § 2 of Public Land Order Ño. 128. To interpret the clause “or any other public lands which are actually occupied by Indians • or Eskimos within said Territory” to describe only land above mean low tide is too restrictive in view of the history and habits of Alaska natives and the course of administration of Indian affairs in that Territory. ’ The title to the uplands and ' waters in question is in the United States. The fisheries as well as the uplands are subject to its present control. In 1868 Congress extended<>our laws relating to customs, commerce and navigation over the “mainland, islands, and waters of the territory.” 15 Stat. 240. The seal islands and the’ waters adjacent thereto were promptly made a reservation for the preservation and exploitation of the seal 'fishery. 15 Stat. 348, 16 Stat. 180! A civil government for the new territory was set up in 1884. 23 Stat. 24. In that, act appeared the proviso referred to supra, n. 31, in the letter of the Secretary of the Interior. By § 12 a commission was empowered to report upon the condition of the Indians. On June 30, 1885, the 'Commission reported to the Secretary of the Interior as to the fisheries in the words in the margin below.
By virtue of § 15 of the act of Congress of March 3, 1891, supra, note 28, the Congress set apart the “body of lands known as Annette Islands” in Alaska for a reservation for the Metlakahtla Indians. Nothing was said as to-fishing rights. A. presidential proclamation, of April 28, 1916, reserved to them the surrounding waters within 3,000 feet. 39'Stat. 1777. After the proclamation a proceeding was brought by the United States relying upon the statute and proclamation to oust.a fish trap of the Alaska Pacific Fisheries from the waters mentioned inNhe-' proclamation. Such a decree was obtained in th§ District Court and affirmed by the Uriited. States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit On the ground "that the reservation of Annette Island by the act of Congress, and of its. surrounding waters by the Presidents proclamation, is fully sustained.” Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 240 F. 274, 283. For the validity of the proclamation, reliance was placed upon his power to reservé lánds for reservations without specific authority. See United States v. Midwest Oil Co., supra. This Court affirmed the decree as to, the waters within 3000 feet of the .shore lines. Although in the brief a vigorous. attack was made; on the power to issue the proclamation covering the. waters, the proclamation.was riot referred to in the unanimous opinion heie. This Court felt compelled to decide that the fisheries were included in the language of the statute by the purpose to assist the Indians to train themselves. Fishing was said to give value to the islands. “The use of the adjacent fishing grounds was equally essential. Without this the colony could not prosper in that location.” Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U. S. 78, 89.
The conditions as to the waters around the Annette Islands closely parallel those of other Alaska areas actually occupied by natives. The Annette Islands case was relied upon by the Secretary of the Interior for his authority to include the fisheries under § 2 of the Act of May 1, 1936. 56 Int. Dept. 110. The Alaska aborigines, like the Metlakahtlans, are fishermen. They, too, depend upon the waters for' a large part of their support. For them the adjacent fisheries are as important as, perhaps more important than, the forests, the fur-bearing animals or the minerals.
Respondents urge upon us the cases in this and other courts which have held that the phrase “public lands,” the term now under consideration, used in § 2 of the Act of May 1, 1936, does not include any area extending below mean high tide. As the respondents state, this case turns, not on tidelands, the area between mean high and mean low tides, but on whether the Secretary could include coastal waters in the reservation, i. e., the area “3,000 feet from the shore line at mean low tide.” As we understand respondents’ argument and as we see this case, the question of tidelands is not significant. Reference to Mann v. Tacoma Land Co., 153 U. S. 273, 283, will make clear respondents’ position. Before the admission of Washington to statehood, November 11, 1889, 26 Stat. 1552, the United States issued land scrip to Mann for location on “unoccupied and unappropriated public lands” and the holder made location on tidelands and received the register’s certificate therefor. When Mann sought to restrain trespass on -the land so obtained, this Court held: “It is settled that the general legislation of Congress in respect to public lands does not extend to tide lands. There is nothing in the act authorizing the Valentine scrip, or in the circumstances which gave occasion for its passage, to make an exception to the general rule.” P. 284. Respondents assert .that the reference to public lands in § 2 should be construed in the same manner, since the federal land laws apply to Alaska as do the reasons for excluding waters seaward of mean high tide.
The Government points out that the cases relating to the limits of “public lands” are cases where final disposition, not temporary use, of the lands appeared. When one deals with a statute so large in purpose as to justify the above-quoted comment of the Secretary of the Interior that it “provides a method by which the financial aid provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act may be extended to those Indians and Eskimos of Alaska who occupy established villages,” one may not fully comprehend the statute’s scope by extracting from it a single phrase, such as “public lands,” and getting the phrase’s meaning from the dictionary or even from dissimilar statutes. Section 2 of the Act of May 1, 1936, is but one of a series of enactments relating to Alaska natives, lands and fisheries. It must “be taken as intended to fit into the existing system” and interpreted in that aspect. There is nothing that we have found in the statute or the legislative history to justify the significance put upon the use of the words “public lands” in the clause of § 2 under discussion instead of “lands” used in the preceding clauses. If a differentiation was intended, surely it would have been more definitely expressed.
Taking into consideration the importance of the fisheries to the Alaska natives, the temporary character of the reservation, the Annette Islands case, the administrative determination, the purpose of Congress to assist the natives by the Alaska amendment to the Wheeler-Howard Act, we have concluded that the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to include the waters in the reservation. No injunction therefore may be obtained because of the invalidity of Order No. 128.
HI.
Subdivision II of this opinion has been directed toward the determination of the scope of § 2 of the Act of May-1, 1936, extending the Wheeler-Howard Act to Alaska. We were led to hold that Order 128, set out in full in note 1, supra, validly included in the reservation the waters to a distance of 3,000 feet from its shores. In his handling of the problems of the Karluk natives as affected by their need for a reservation and fishing rights, the Secretary of the Interior took another step under' the authority of § 1 of another act, the White Act. The section is set out at length in the text beginning on page 92 of this opinion. The Act was for the protection of the fisheries of Alaska. Section 1 authorized'the Secretary to set apart fishing areas in any of the waters of Alaska and establish in those preserves closed seasons “during which fishing, may be- limited or prohibited.”
Pursuant to this statute.detailed regulations were issued by the Secretary of-Commerce and they have been continued by the Secretary of the Interior since Reorganization Plan No. II, note 4, supra. One area established was the Kodiak Area which included the waters here in question. - Among the waters at'first closed to commercial salmon fishing were the Karluk River spawning waters and those within 100 yards of its mouth. Later the Secretary of the Interior, still acting solely under § 1 of the White Act, added the waters of the Karluk Reservation to the prohibited areas. An'exception was made in the regulation to the prohibition against fishing • in the reservation waters. The precise language.of the entire subsection (r) of the regulation,
§ 208.23, is on page 92 of this opinion. We repeat here the exception:
“The foregoing prohibition shall not apply to fishing by natives in possession of iaid reservation, nor. to fishing by other persons under authority granted by said natives . (49 Stat. 1250; 48 U. S. C. 358a). Such authority shall be granted only by or .pursuant: to ordinance of the Native Village of Karluk, approved by the Secretary of the Interior of his duly .authorized representative.”
The citation to 49 Stat. 1250 is to the Act of May 1, 1936, authorizing the creation of the reservation. Perhaps it was thought that the creation of the reservation justified this exception in the White Act regulation but we do not understand that any support from that Act is claimed for the establishment of the White Act preserve.
The validity of the exception permitting fishing by natives in possession of the reservation and their licensees is challenged by respondents because of a proviso in § 1 of the White Act, reading:
“Provided, That every such regulation made by the Secretary of Commerce shall be of general application within the particular area to which it applies, and that no exclusive or several right of fishery shall be granted therein, nor shall any citizen of the United States be denied the right to take, prepare, cure, or preserve fish or shellfish in any area of the waters of Alaska where fishing is permitted by the Secretary of Commerce. . . .”
Respondents alleged that the exception for fishing by natives and their licensees made § 208.23 (r) wholly illegal because it was inconsistent with the proviso of § 1 of the White Act as to exclusive or several right of fishery. The District and Circuit Courts agreed with this argument and the District Court said that the regulation must be viewed in its entirety, 67 F. Supp. 43, 49. We agree that it is not possible to separate the closing of the area from the exception and thus hold the closing applicable to everyoné. A right to fish locally is too important to the natives in Alaska for us to conclude from this record that the Secretary would have promulgated the prohibition to fish for salmon in reservation waters without the exception in favor r.Qf the natives. We have no doubt, however, that the White Act authorizes the establishment of White Act preserves or closed areas in. reservations created, as the Karluk Reservation, under § 2 of the Act extending the Wheeler-Howard Act to Alaska. No implications can be drawn from the broad and clear language of the White Act that reservation waters, however valuable for fishing or fish propagation, must be left unprotected from ruthless exploitation.
What we have said heretofore in this opinion as to the importance of fisheries and their conservation to' Alaska natives , with reference to the Karluk River area in particular need not be repeated.. The quoted section of the. White Act gives power to the Secretary so that he may “(c) make such regulations as to time, means, methods, and extent of fishing as he. may deem advisable.” Then follows the proviso that every such regulation, shall be of general application and that no exclusive or several right of fishing shall be granted therein. This section was enacted to correct-alleged abuses that arose in the administration of the Act “For the protection and regulation of the fisheries of Alaska,” approved June 26, 1906, 34 Stat. 478. By § 6 of the earlier act, streams or lakes could be set aside as permanent preserves but not coastal waters. Although the 1906 Act did not. delegate regulatory powers in the amplitude of the White Act, fishing reservations in territorial waters were created by Executive Order and regulations were issued thereunder. The policy behind these regulations and their administration was to restrict the right to. fish commercially to those who had formerly fished in these areas. See Fisheries Service Bulletin No. 92, Jan. 2, 1923. Congress did not propose that these rich fishing grounds should be monopolized by this defined group. The legislative history of the White Act only emphasizes what the statute clearly says, that is, no special privileges in Alaskan fishing preserves. The enfprcement provisions of the White Act gave stern warning to prospective violators.
For the conservation of the fisheries, it was recognized that administrative flexibility must be permitted.
“The' waters of Alaska are so vast and the local conditions so varied that it is utterly impossible to prescribe by legislation in detail the provisions necessary to meet each situation. To attempt to do so would be to-defeat the purposes sought. This can be done by placing broad powers and a wide discretion in the administrative branch having charge of the subject.” S. Rep. No. 449 on H. R. 8143 (which became the White Act), 68th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2. Compare Dow v. Ickes, 74 App. D. C. 319, 323, 123 F. 2d 909, 913.
Although § 8 of the White Act left a power in the Territorial Legislature of Alaska to impose taxes or licenses for fishing, we .do not read § 8 as limiting the power to license fishing to the Territorial Legislature. The section does not make the legislative power exclusive.. Since § 1 of the White Act not only authorizes the establishment of fishing preserves blit also requires that the fishing be carried on. “in conformity with such rules and regulations as the Secretary prescribes under the authority herein given,” we are of the opinion that licenses for fishing may be required in areas regulated under the White Act. We think, however, these licenses may be only regulatory in character and, within the discretion of the Secretary, must have their cost fixed so as not to exceed the estimated approximate cost of reasonable policing of the area. We do not read the White Act as empowering the Secretary to raise general funds for native welfare or general conservation purposes from White Act preserves.
As § 208.23 (r) with its exception in favor of the nativés in possession of Karluk Reservation and their licensees, is based upon § 1 of the White Act, we think it clear that its proviso, “that no exclusive or several right of fishery shall be granted therein,” applies, to commercial fishing by natives equally with fishing companies, nonresidents of,Alaska or other American citizens, and so applies whether those natives are-or are not residents on a reservation. We find nothing in the White Act that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant reservation occupants the privilege of exclusive commercial fishing rights. It seems also clear to us that the adoption of a corporate charter and a constitution by the Native Village of Karluk under §§16 and 17 of the Wheeler-Howard Act, discussed at pp. 106-107, supra, can add nothing to the power of the Secretary under the White Act. “Exclusive,” as used in § 1 of the White Act, forbids not only a grant to a single person or corporation but to'any special group or number of people. The legislative history set out above shows this. The offending regulations which brought about the enactment of the proviso in § 1 of the White Act were administered so as to limit fishing to those who had been using the fisheries before' the regulations. The White Act fishing preserves were not intended to furnish a monopoly to a favored few. Whatever may be the powers, of the Department of the Interior or the natives as to regulating the entrance of persons other than natives in possession of Karluk Reservation into or on the area of land and water in that reservation, they are not broad enough to allow the use of the White Act sanctions to protect the reservation against trespass. White Act sanctions are for White Act violations. The Department of the Interior by § 208.23 (r) has decided upon the conservation of fisheries in the described waters of the Karluk Reservation in accordance with the White Act, with an exception in favor of the natives that seems to rest on the fact that the natives are on a reservation that includes the White Act conservation area. This cannot be done. The welfare of the 57 electors of Karluk Reservation and their families is important. The Secretary of the Interior, however, cannot give them such preferences as are here given under the authority of the White Act. Other American citizens are equally entitled to the benefits from White Act preserves. We hold that the regulation § 208.23 (r) is void as a whole because it violates the proviso of the White Act. See p. 93.
IV.
There are problems connected with the administration of the Karluk Reservation and the protection of the fishing preserves that have not been determined by the courts or the Department of the Interior. Our holding that coastal waters may be included in the reservation waters and that the White Act cannot be used to create a monopoly in the Indians establishes a different basis for administrative and judicial conclusions. The 1945 ordinance must be considered; it appears in the margin. • It states that Public Land Order 128 restricts the right to .fish commercially in the reservation waters to Karluk inhabitants. This ordinance antedates , the regulation. See p. 91, supra. It evidently is based on the theory that the creation of the reservation gave exclusive fishing rights to the natives in possession. Permits required the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative. An example of the permit is printed below. We know nothing from the record of the reasons for the $2 fee for residents or the $40 fee for nonresidents or their relation to the cost of policing the area. See Haavik v. Alaska Packers Association, 263 U. S. 510. So far as appears, after once approving an ordinance the Department’s only direct control over the ordinance is by approval or disapproval of amendments.
This is an equitable proceeding in which the respondents seek protection against Unlawful action by petitioner, the Regional Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior. The interests of respondents, the Indians of Karluk Reservation, and the efforts of the Department of the Interior to administer its responsibilities fairly to fishermen and Indians are involved. These are questions of public policy which equity is alert to protect. This Court is far removed from the locality and cannot have the understanding of the practical difficulties involved in the conflicts of interest that is possessed by the District Court. Therefore we think it appropriate for us to refrain from now entering a final order disposing definitively of the controversy. With our conclusion on the law as to the establishment of the reservation and the invalidity of-the regulation before them, the Department and the parties should have a reasonable time, subject to the action of the District Court on the new proposals, to adjust their affairs so as to comply with our determinations.
We therefore vacate the decrees of the District Court and the Court of Appeals and remand this proceeding to the District Court with directions to allow thirty days from the issuance of our mandate for the Secretary of the Interior to give consideration to the effect of our decision. Unless Steps are taken in this proceeding the District Court, on the expiration of thirty days, shall enter a decree enjoining the defendant Hynes and all acting in concert with him, substantially as ordered in the permanent injunction entered November 6, 1946. If timely steps are taken, the District Court will, of course, be free to enter such orders as it may deem proper and not inconsistent with* the present decision. Pending the entry of further orders by the District Court, the preliminary injunction entered July 18, 1946, shall apply to protect the rights of the respondents.
Tt is so ordered.
8 Fed. Reg. 8557:'
“Alaska
“MODIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER DESIGNATING LANDS AS INDIAN RESERVATION
“By virtue of the authority contained in the act of June 25, 1910, c. 421, 36 Stat. 847, as amended by the act of August 24, 1912, c. 369, 37 Stat. 497 (U. S. C., title 43, secs. 141-143), and the act of May 1, 1936, c. 254, 49'Stat. 1250 (U. S. C., title 48, sec. 358a), and pursuant to Executive Order No. 9146 of April 24, 1942: It is ordered, As follows:
“1. Executive Order No. 8344 of February 10, 1940, withdrawing Kodiak and other islands, Alaska, for classification and in aid of legislation, is hereby modified to the extent necessary to permit the designation as an Indian reservation of the followingrdescribed area:
“Beginning at the end of a point of land on the shore of Shelikof Strait on Kodiak Island, said point being about one and one-quarter miles east of Rocky Point and in approximate latitude 57°39'40" N., longitude 154° 12'20" W.;
“Thence south approximately eight miles to latitude 57°32'30" N.;
“Thence west approximately twelve and one-half miles to the confluence of the north shore of Sturgeon River with the east shore of Shelikof Strait;
“Thence northeasterly following the easterly shore of Shelikof Strait to the place of beginning, containing approximately 35,200 acres.
“2. The area described above and the waters adjacent thereto extending 3,000 feet from the shore line at mean low tide, are hereby designated as an Indian reservation for the use and benefit of the native inhabitants of the native village of Karluk, Alaska, and vicinity: Provided, That such designation shall be effective only upon its approval by the vote of the Indian and Eskimo residents of the area involved in accordance- with section 2 of the act of May 1, 1936, supra: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall affect any valid existing claim or right under the laws of the United States within the purview of that section.”
The. first section reads as follows, 36 Stat. 847:
“That the President may, at any time in his discretion, temporarily withdraw from settlement, location, sale,' or entry any of the public lands of the United States including the District of Alaska and reserve the same for water-power sites, irrigation, classification of lands, or other public purposes to be specified in the orders of withdrawals, and such withdrawals or reservations shall remain in force until revoked by him or by an Act of Congress.”
There is a second section designed to keep the reservations free for mineral exploration and utilization.
There is an amendment, immaterial here, see 44 Stat. 752.
Under Reorganization Plan No. II the authority of the Department of Commerce over the administration of the White Act was transferred to the Department of the Interior, effective July 1, 1939. 53 Stat. 1431, § 4(e).
The river itself and all waters within 100 yards of its mouth • are closed to all commercial salmon fishing. 50 C. F. R., 1946 Supp., § 208.23 (d).-
Bancroft, History of Alaska, 1730-1885, p. 228, n. 12.
Id., p.743.
H. R. Mise. Doc. No. 211, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Report on the Salmon and Salmon Rivers of Alaska, p. 20:
“The number of salmon actually caught in Karluk Bay, near the river mouth and in the lower portion of the river, is so large as to make'a true statement concerning them seem incredible. In 1888 the canneries put up over 200,000 cases, averaging about 13 red salmon to the case, or more than 2,500,000 fish. In 1889 the number of fish put up was still larger, reaching probably 250,000 cases, containing more than 3,000,000 salmon. As the number of fish arriving at Karluk Bay for a long period of years has been known to be far greater than in any of the other bays of southern Alaska, it is probable that most of these salmon were present at Karluk for the purpose of ascending the river to spawn. Now the number of spawning fish seen in- the river, the lakes, and their connecting rivers was..comparatively very small, -indeed out of all proportion to the number taken on the beach.”
The highest reported by the Statistical Review of the Alaska Salmon .Fisheries, June 13, 1930, Bureau of Fisheries Bulletin, vol. XLVT, p. 666, was nearly 4,000,000 fish in 1901 and the lowest about 400,000 in 1927. The report said:
“Many investigations of the Karluk red-salmon fishery have been made, .much has been written about it, commercial interests have battled for exclusive control and domination of it, and dire prophecies have- beery heard concerning its ultimate destruction. Because of these things, Karluk has undoubtedly been given more close attention than any other fishery in Alaska. . . .”
Unchallenged figures by plaintiffs show large catches. A table from .the largest operator is printed for illustration.
“The total catch of fish taken within the area now included in the Karluk Indian Reservation during the years specified . . . :
Coho Chum Pink . King Red Total
1941 ...... 1058 632 9893 134 59958 71675
1942 ...... 397 14556 225323 57 58042 298375
1943 ...... S3 825 2380 161 60273 63722
1944 ...... 33 5803 219300 69 63535 288740
1945 ...... 4 150- 554 84 50907 51699
1946 ...... 137' 8660 1024596 44 25381 1058818”
“Minutes of Meeting
“A meeting was called by the president and the same evening with Mr. Peters Mr. Watrous of Juneau and Mr. Leraas present. Following discussion and action:
"1. The problems of setting aside an area for beach seining were discussed. It was agreed that 1000 yd. from the mouth of the river up the spit and from the mouth of the river to Julia Fort point approximately 500 yd. on the Improvement side, placing markers or buoys '500 yd. out from mean low water mark be the restricted area for Karluk beach seining only. Purse seining could be done outside this restricted area this year or until further action by the council.”
See Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 214; Petroleum Explorfition, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 304 U. S. 209, 217-19.
Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S. 387; Ex parte Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200.
Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341; Packard v. Banton, 264 U. S. 140; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33; Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 620, Second. Cf. Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S. 387, 400; Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89; Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368.
43 Stat. 466, 48 U. S. C. § 226.
Parker v. Brown, supra, 349. ’Seizure of a fisherman’s boat is a drastic sanction. See Hearings before the Subcommittee on Alaskan Fisheries of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 76.th Gong., 1st Sess., pp. 45-47.
67 F. Supp. 43; 165 F. 2d 323.
Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Co., 300 U. S. 55,69; Pacific States Co. v. White, 296 U. S. 176, 185; Wampler v. Lecompte, 282 U. S. 172, 175; Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, 32.
Executive Order 9146,1 C. F. R., Cum. Supp., p. 1149:
“By virtue of the authority vested in me by the act of June 25, 1910, c. 421, 36 Stat. 847, and as President of the United States, I hereby authorize the Secretary of-the Interior to--sign all orders withdrawing or reserving public lands of the United States, and all orders revoking or modifying such orders:....”
Executive Order 8344, 1 C. F. R., Cum. Supp., 618, referred to in Public Land Order 128, temporarily withdrew Kodiak Island from settlement, location, sale or entry for classification.
So far as material that act is set out in note 2, supra.
It is unnecessary to appraise the effect of such restoration. Tribal ownership may vary from an unrecognized Indian title, see Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U. S. 335, 338, 340, to; land so set apart to an Indian tribe by definitive treaty as to require compensation to the tribe, if the United States thereafter appropriated lands within the aredf. See Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U. S. 476, 486; 44 Stat. 1349. The effect of restoration under the Wheeler-Howard Act will depend upon the. provisions of law under- which the^separate reservations exist. Compare Cohen, Handbook'of Federal Indian Law, e. 5, §5A, p. 94.
Possible claims under the Indian Claims Commission Act of August 13, 1946, are not coyered by this statement. See .60 Stat. 1049, 1050, §2(5). It refers to claims “based upon fair and honorable dealings that are not recognized by any existing rule of law or equity No claim accruing after the date of the approval of this Act shall be considered by the Commission.”
United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U. S. 111, 116; Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U. S. 476, 485, 486, 492, First; United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U. S. 103, 109 United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U. S. 49, 58; Ute Indians v. United States, 330 U. S. 169, 176, et seq.; Arenas v. United States, 322 U. S. 419; opinions on remand, United States v. Arenas, 158 F. 2d 730; Arenas v. United States, 60 F. Supp. 411.
For example, in the Arenas case, 322 U. S. 419, the-statute read: “Sec. 5. That upon the-approval of the allotments provided for in the preceding section by the Secretary of the Interior h§ shall cause patents to issue therefor in the name'of the allottees, which shall be of,the legal effect and,declare that the United States does and will hold the land thus allotted for the period of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment- shall have been made, or, in .case of his. decease, of .his heirs according to the laws of the State of California, and that at the expiration" of said period the United States will convey the same 'by patent to the said Indian, or his heirs as aforesaid, in fee, discharged of said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever. . . ,” P. 422.
One gets a sense of its value from the catch of a single operator. Note 10, supra.
We understand, although it is not a fact of weight, that the number includes both men and women over twenty-one. 49 Stat. 1251; Constitution and By-Laws of the Native Village of Karluk, Alaska, Official Publication, United.States Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, GPO (1939); Constitution,. Art. V, §1; Certificate of Adoption, p. 4; 48 Stat. 986-87, §§ 13 and 16.
The population of Karluk around 1880 was 302. Report on the Population, Industries, and Resources of Alaska by Ivan Petrdff, p. 29, H. R. Misc. Doc. No. 42, Pt. 8, 47th Cong., 2d Sess. In 1920 it was 99; in 1929 it .was 192; in 1939 it was 189. 16th Census of the United States (1940), Population, vol. 1, Number of Inhabitants, p. 1193.
In the Act of May 14, 1898, 30 Stat. 409, which extended the homestead land laws of the United States t© Alaska, it was specifically provided that “no entry shall be allowed extending.more than-eighty rods along the shoré of any navigable water, and along such shore a space of at least eighty rods shall be reserved from entry between all such claims, and that nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to authorize entries top be made, or title to be acquired, to the shore of ally navigable waters within said District: . . . .”
Compare the statute creating the Metlakahtla Reservation, 26 Stat. 1101:
“Sec. 15. That until otherwise provided by law the body of lands known as Annette Islands, situated in Alexander Archipelago in Southeastern Alaska, on the north side of Dixon's entrance, be, and the same is hereby, .,$et apart as' a reservation for the use of the Metlakahtla Indians, and those people known as Metlakáhtlans who have recently emigrated from [British Columbia to Alaska, and such other Alaskan natives as may join them, to be held and used by1 them in common, under such rules and regulations, and subject to such restrictions, as may [be] prescribed from time to time by the Secretary of the Interior.” See 34 Stat. 1411..and 48 Stat. 667.
See a discussion of the limited power of the President to create even temporary reservations for Indian immigrants. 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 557.
We have carefully considered the opinion in Miller v. United States, 159 F. 2d 997, where it is held, p. 1001, that the Indian right of. occupancy of Alaska lands is compensable. With all respect to the learned judges, familiar with Alaska land laws, we cannot express agreement with that conclusion! The opinion upon which they chiefly rely, United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U. S. 40, is not an authority for this position. That opinion does not hold the Indian right of occupancy compensable without specific legislative direction to make payment. See also United States v. 10.95 Acres of Land in Juneau, 75 F. Supp. 841.
In hearings before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., on S. 3645, the bill which became the Act of June 18, 1934, p. 247, the following discussion took place as to the meaning of these words:
“Senator O’Mahoney. But what you are saying here is that the constitution shall vest in.some person — what? The following rights and powers. And then you undertake to enumerate those powers. The first one that you enumerate is the right to employ' counsel. The second one is the right- to prevent individuals from selling and disposing of their property. Then you come to a third one and it is to represent the tribe, and that seems to me tó be hanging up in the air. . ..
“The Chairman. The second one you'stated incorrectly.
“Senator O’M.-.honey. Have I ?
“The' Chairman. It is not to prevent them from selling individual lands; it is tribal lands.
“Senator O’Mahoney. Yes, that is right; tribal lands.”
H. R. Rep. No. 2244 on H..R. 9866, 74th Cong., 2d Sess.; S. Rep. No. 1748 on S. 4420,74th Cong., 2d Sess.
“An even moré important reason for the designation of reservatións in Alaska is that by doing so the United States Government will have fulfilled in part its moral and-legal obligations in the protection of the economic rights of the Alaska natives. In at least, two acts of Congress this ■ obligation is specifically acknowledged. The act approved on May. 17, 1884 (23 Stat. 26), contains the following language: ‘Provided, That the Indians or other persons in said district shall not be disturbed in the possession^ any lands actually in their use or occupation or now' claimed by them but the terms under which such persons may acquire title to such -lands is reserved for future legislation by Congress.’
“The act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1100), contains similar language: ‘That none of the provisions of the last two preceding sections of this Act shall be so .construed as to warrant the sale of any lands belonging to the United States which shall contain coal.or the'precious metals, or any townsite, or which’ shall' be occupied by the United States for public purposes, or which shall be reserved for such purposes, or to which the natives of Alaska have prior rights by virtue of actual occupation.’ Lands which should have been, by virtue of these acts, segregated for natives of Alaska have not been so segregated. The provisions of section 2 of H. R. 9866 will aid the Federal Government in rectifying this condition, and in protecting the interests of .the natives in the future. Section 2 of the bill which gives to the Secretary of the Interior power to designate certain lands as Indian reservations is, therefore, á logical sequence of the legislative history regarding Indian lairds in Alaska and provides a method by Which the financial aid provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act may be extended to those Indians and Eskimos of Alaska who occupy established villages.” , .
This appears from the following excerpt from-the Secretary’s letter:
“Indian- tribes do not exist in Alaska in the same sense as in continental United- States. Section 19 of the Indian Reorganization Act defines the word ‘tribe’ as referring to ‘Any Indian tribe, organized band, pueblo, or the Indians residing on one reservation.' With a few exceptions the ■ lands occupied by natives of Alaska have not been designated as reservations. . In order, therefore, to define an Alaskan tribe it is necessary to. identify it with the land it occupies and in terms of the language of the act, ‘reservation.’ In addition, if native communities of Alaska are to set up systems of local government, it. will be necessary to stipulate the geographical limits of their jurisdictions. Reservations set up by the Secretary of the Interior will accomplish this.” This, with the proviso of the first-section, was deemed sufficient to enable the lands to be identified and to permit the-Wheeler-Howard benefits to be available to the Alaska'-iiatives.
36 Stat. 847, § 2.
Treaty with Eugsia, proclaimed June 20, 1867,' 15 Stat. 539, 541-542:
Art. II. “In the cession of territory and dominion made by the preceding article are included the right of property in' all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifices which are not private individual '■jlroperty. . . .”
Art. III. “The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according • to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Eussia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, 'Shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the'rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt ‘.in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.'”
Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U. S. 78, 87; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 47, and cases cited; Mann v. Tacoma Land Co., 153 U. S. 273, 283. See also Tulee v. Washington, 315 U. S. 681. In Knight v. U. S. Land Association, 142 U. S. 161, the Court said, p. 183: “Upon the acquisition of the territory from Mexico the United States acquired the' title to tide 'lands equally with the title to upland; but with respect to. the former they held it only in trust for the future States that might be erected out of such territory.” , In Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States; supra, the statement is made, p. 87, “That Congress had power to make the reservation inclusive of the adjacent waters and submerged land as well as the upland néeds little more than statement. All were the property of the United States and. within a district where the entire dominion and sovereignty rested in the United States and over which Congress had complete legislative authority.” Compare also Borax, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U. S. 10, 15.
23 Stat.’ 27:
“Sec. 12. That the Secretary of the Interior shall select two of the officers to be appointed under this act, who, together with the governor, shall constitute a commission to examine into and report upon the condition of the Indians residing in said Territory, what lands, if any, should b.e reserved for their use, what provision shall be made for their education what-rights by occupation of settlers should be recognized, and all other facts that may be necessary to enable Congress to determine what limitations or conditions should be imposed when the land laws of the United States shall be extended to said district; and to defray the expenses of said commission the sum of two thousand dollars is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.”
“The General Land Laws of the United States should be extended over the Territory as early as possible. The Natives claim only the land on which their houses a-re built and some garden patches near their villages; they ask or expect nothing more. A deed for their lots in severalty would be a very highly prized document by them. ■ The fisheries occupied by them before the advent of the Whites-should also be secured to them against encroachment. They ask only, the same rights and protection given the white man.”
“Now, therefore, I, Woodrow- Wilson, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the power in me vested by the laws' of the United States, 'do hereby make known and proclaim that the waters within three thousand feet from- the shore lines at mean •low tide of Annette. Island, Ham Island, Walker Island, Lewis Island, Spire Island, Hemlock Island, and adjacent rocks and islets, located within the area segregated by the broken line upon the diagram hereto attached and made a part of this proclamation; also the bays of said islands, rocks, and islets, are hereby reserved for the benefit of the Metlakahtlans and such other Alaskan natives as. have joined them or may join them in residence, oh these islands,, to be used by them under the general fisheries laws and‘regulations of the United States as administered by the Secretary of Commerce.
“Warning is hereby expressly given to all unauthorized persons noif to fish in or use any of the waters herein described or mentioned.”
A presidential proclamation had theretofore, 1892, set apart Afognak Island, Alaska, and its adjacent bays and territorial waters as a public reservation for fish culture without specific authority to reserve waters. 27 Stat. 1052.
Borax, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U. S. 10, 17, 22. This case turned on “the power of the United States to convey tideland seaward of the line of mean high tide after California’s admission, to the Union. Public lands there could not’ include' tidelands as they passed to California when she became a state. The eases, cited in the Borax case to support the statement as to public lands are .■ cases that have nothing to do with tidelands or coastal waters but depend upop whether the lands in question, were subject to disposal as property of the United States, i'. e., public lands. See Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761, 763; Barker v. Harvey, 181 U. S. 481, 490; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Harris, 215 U. S. 386, 388.
Act of May 14, 1898, c. 299, 30 Stat. 409, 48 ü. S. C. §371 (homestead laws); Act of March 3, 1899, c. 424, 30 Stat. 1098, 48 U. S. C. § 351 (public land surveys); Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2537, 34 Stat. 1232,48 U. S. C. § 365 (land districts).
See also Miller v. United States, supra, note 28; Heckman v. Sutter, 128 F. 393.
Cf. United States v. Jefferson Electric Co., 291 U. S. 386, 397.
Alaska Fisheries General-Regulations, 50 C. F. R., c. II, p. 2333.
Id., p:2355; 3 Fed. Reg. 393.
Ai.;p.2359.
11 Fed. Reg. 3105, 9528.
Executive Order of.Feb. 17, 1922, creating the Alaska Peninsula Fisheries Reservation; Executive Order No. 3752 of Nov, 3, 1922, creating the Southwestern Alaska Fisheries Reservation. Regulations • issued under these two Executive Orders are printed in the Fisheries Service Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, Dept. of Commerce, No. 92* Jan. 2,'-'1923.. .
65 Cong.' Rec. 5974; 65 Cong. Rec. 9520-21;..65 Cong. Rec. 9681 et seq.; H. R. Rep. No. 357, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2; S. Rep.-No. 449, 68th Cong., 1st Sess.,tp. 5; House Hearings, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Fisheries of Alaska (1924), on H. R. 2714, January 31-February 8, 1924, 68th Cong!; 1st Sess., p. 21, eí seq. Note that this is a different1 bill than H. R. 8143 which became the White Act but the subject was' the same. See H. R. Rep. No. 357, supra, p. 1. Dow v. Ickes, 74 App. D. C. 319, 123 F. 2d 909.
43 Stat.466:
“Sec. 6. Any person, company, corporation, or association violating any provision of this Act or of said Act of Congress approved June 26, 1906, or of any regulation made under the authority of either, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by.a fine not exceeding $5,000 or .imprisonment for a term of not more • than ninety days in the-county jail, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and in case of the violation of section 3. of said Act approved June 26,1906, as amended, there may be imposed a further fine not exceeding $250 for each day the obstruction therein- declared unlawful is maintained. Every'boat, seine, net, trap, and every other gear and appliance used or employed in violation of this Act or in violation of said Act approved June 26,1906; and all fish taken therein or therewith, shall be forféited to the United States, and shall be seized and sold under .the direction of the court in which the forfeiture is declared, at. public auction, and the proceeds thereof, after deducting the expenses-of. sale, shall be disposed of as other fines and forfeitures under the’ laws relating to Alaska. Proceedings for such forfeiture shall be in rem under the rule's of admiralty. ' '
“That for the purposes of this Act all employees of the Bureau of Fisheries, designated by the Commissioner of Fisheries, shall be considered as,peace officers and shall have'the same powers of arrest of persons and seizure Of property for any violation of- this Act as have United States marshals, or their deputies.”
43 Stat. 467:
“Sec. 8. Nothing in this Act contained, nor any powers herein conferred upon the Secretary of Commerce, shall abrogate or curtail the powers granted the Territorial Legislature of Alaska to impose taxes or licenses, nor limit or curtail any powers granted the Territorial Legislature of Alaska by the Act of Gongress approved August 24, 1912, 'To create a legislative assembly in the Territory of Alaska, to confer legislative power thereon, and for other purposes.’ ”
See § 1 of the White Ac-tj- pp. 92-93, supra.
See 27 Stat. 631, relating to ¿«presentation of Indians by the United States district attorneys; Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, pp. 252-53; Powers of Indian Tribes, Solicitor of the Interior, Nathan R. Margold, October 25, 1934, M27781 pp. 55-58. See United States v. Candelaria, 271 U. S. 432; United States v. Berrigan, 2 Alaska 442; United States v. Cadzow, 5 Alaska 125.
Dow v. Ickes, 74 App. D. C. 319, 326, 123 F. 2d 909, 916: “It prohibits monopoly, but it does not prohibit reasonable discriminations required by the purpose of conservation and limitations inherent in the type of fishing to which the Secretary's judgment must be applied.”
“An Ordinance. Whereas, under Public Land Order 128, of May 22, 1943, creating the Karluk Reservation, the right to fish commercially in the waters of said reservation is restricted to the inhabitants of the Native Village of Karluk and vicinity, and;
“Whereas, non-residents desire to continue their fishing operations in the .waters of said reservation;
Now, Therefore, be it ordained by the Council of the Native Village of Karluk, a federal corporation chartered under the Act of June 18,1934, as amended;
“Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, firm, association or corporation, to fish for, take or catch any fish, or to operate any fishing vessel,- gear or equipment, within the waters of the Karluk Reservation except under a permit issued by the Native Village of Karluk, for which the fee shall be as follows:
“(A) For residents of the Territory of Alaska $1.00
“ (B) For non-residents of the Territory of Alaska $25.00
“Provided further, that a person to qualify for a resident (Class A) permit must have resided in the Territory of Alaska for three consecutive years prior to the date, of their application, or request, for a permit.
“Section 2. The possession of fish upon any vessel within said . waters without a permit shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of this ordinance.
“Section 3. Any violation of this ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.)
“Approved this 31st day óf May, 1945.”
The 1946 ordinance made the fee $2.00 for residents of Alaska and $40.00 for nonresidents. . -
Karluk had received its corporate charter, constitution and by-law's August 23, 1939. Official publications, Office of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior. See §§ 16 and 17, 48 Stat. 987, 988.
Section 5 of the Corporate Charter of the Native Village of Karluk provides that “In using its powers the corporation must not do the following things:
“Make leases, permits or contracts covering any lands or waters set aside as a reserve .for the Village without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative.” ■ ,
“COMMERCIAL FISHING PERMIT
“Karluk Indian Reservation, Karluk, Alaska, June 30, 1946.
"Pursuant to an Ordinance passed by the Council of the Native Village of Karluk, Alaska, dated May 31, 1946, permission is hereby given by the Native Village of Karluk to Ray Harmon of Kodiak, Alaska, to enter the waters and land of the Karluk Reservation for the purpose of engaging in commercial fishing for salmon, S. J. F. & P. Co., during the period:
“June 1946 to-September 1946.
“This permit is issued subject to the conditions printed on. the back hereof.
Ewan M.- Naumoff'
ISSUING OFFICER
President Karluk title
I accept: Approved:
Ray Harmon . H. .C. Bingham
permittee APPROVING OFFICER
Boat No. or Name: Caroline ■Asst. Teacher A. N. S.
Fishing for: San Juan Uganik Bay, Alaska TITLE
(CANNERY) NAME ADDRESS
“CONDITIONS
“This permit is valid only if approved by the General Superintendent of the Indian Service in Alaska or his duly authorized representative, and is revocable in the discretion of the issuing officer. It is not transferable and must be carried on the person of the permittee when engaged in fishing authorized hereunder, and must be exhibited to any person requesting to see it. This permit is issued and accepted by the permittee on the express condition that the permittee will comply with all of the provisions of law and regulations governing fishing on the Karluk Indian Reservation, Alaska. The permittee is warned not to interfere with the fishing activities of the Indians of the Karluk Indian Reservation nor use, disturb, or destroy any property belonging to said Indians.”
Article VI of the Constitution of the Native Village of Karluk provides that “Changes in this Constitution and By-laws may be. made if the changes are approved by the Secretary of the Interior and by a majority vote of the Village members voting in an election called by the Secretary of the Interior at which at least 30 per cent of the voting membership take part.”
For a discussion of the difficulties of the. preparation of regulations, compare Addison v. Holly Hill Co., 322 U. S. 607. See also the statements of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in Hearings before the House Committee on Indian Affairs, 73d Cong.; 2d Sess., on H. R. 7902 (Wheeler-Howard Act).
Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation, 300 U. S. 515, 552; Harrisonville v. Dickey Clay Co., 289 U. S. 334, 338, note 2.
Compare Atlantic Coast Line v. Florida, 295 U. S. 301, 314-15; Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315, 333; Addison v. Holly Hill Co., 322 U. S. 607, 620.
Set forth at note 1 of the Court’s opinion. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the federal agency involved in the administrative action that occurred prior to the onset of litigation. If the administrative action occurred in a state agency, respond "State Agency". Do not code the name of the state. The administrative activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. If two federal agencies are mentioned, consider the one whose action more directly bears on the dispute;otherwise the agency that acted more recently. If a state and federal agency are mentioned, consider the federal agency. Pay particular attention to the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations. | What is the agency involved in the administrative action? | [
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bureau of Prisons",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner or Collector of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Administrative agency established under an interstate compact (except for the MTC)",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration or Board of Veterans' Appeals",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"State Agency",
"Unidentifiable",
"Office of Thrift Supervision",
"Department of Homeland Security",
"Board of General Appraisers",
"Board of Tax Appeals",
"General Land Office or Commissioners",
"NO Admin Action",
"Processing Tax Board of Review"
] | [
25
] | sc |
YARBOROUGH, WARDEN v. ALVARADO
No. 02-1684.
Argued March 1, 2004
Decided June 1, 2004
Deborah Jane Chuang, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. De Nicola, Deputy Attorney General, and Kenneth C. Byrne, Supervising Deputy Attorney General.
John P. Elwood argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Wray, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Deborah Watson.
Tara K. Allen, by appointment of the Court, 540 U. S. 1043, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the briefs were Thomas J. Phalen and John H. Blume.
Kent S. Scheidegger and Charles L. Hobson filed a brief for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Juvenile Law Center et al. by Marsha L. Levick and Lourdes M. Rosado; and for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Jeffrey T. Green and David M. Porter.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, a federal court can grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person held pursuant to a state-court judgment if the state-court adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a state court unreasonably applied clearly established law when it held that the respondent was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Alvarado v. Hickman, 316 F. 3d 841 (2002). We disagree and reverse.
I
Paul Soto and respondent Michael Alvarado attempted to steal a truck in the parking lot of a shopping mall in Santa Fe Springs, California. Soto and Alvarado were part of a larger group of teenagers at the mall that night. Soto decided to steal the truck, and Alvarado agreed to help. Soto pulled out a .357 Magnum and approached the driver, Francisco Castaneda, who was standing near the truck emptying trash into a dumpster. Soto demanded money and the ignition keys from Castaneda. Alvarado, then five months short of his 18th birthday, approached the passenger side door of the truck and crouched down. When Castaneda refused to comply with Soto’s demands, Soto shot Castaneda, killing him. Alvarado then helped hide Soto’s gun.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s detective Cheryl Comstock led the investigation into the circumstances of Castaneda’s death. About a month after the shooting, Comstock left word at Alvarado’s house and also contacted Alvarado’s mother at work with the message that she wished to speak with Alvarado. Alvarado’s parents brought him to the Pico Rivera Sheriff’s Station to be interviewed around lunchtime. They waited in the lobby while Alvarado went with Com-stock to be interviewed. Alvarado contends that his parents asked to be present during the interview but were rebuffed.
Comstock brought Alvarado to a small interview room and began interviewing him at about 12:30 p.m. The interview lasted about two hours, and was recorded by Comstock with Alvarado’s knowledge. Only Comstock and Alvarado were present. Alvarado was not given* a warning under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Comstock began the interview by asking Alvarado to recount the events on the night of the shooting. On that night, Alvarado explained, he had been drinking alcohol at a friend’s house with some other friends and acquaintances. After a few hours, part of the group went home and the rest walked to a nearby mall to use its public telephones. In Alvarado’s initial telling, that was the end of it. The group went back to the friend’s home and “just went to bed.” App. 101.
Unpersuaded, Comstock pressed on:
“Q. Okay. We did real good up until this point and everything you’ve said it’s pretty accurate till this point, except for you left out the shooting.
“A. The shooting?
“Q. Uh huh, the shooting.
“A. Well I had never seen no shooting.
“Q. Well I’m afraid you did.
“A. I had never seen no shooting.
“Q. Well I beg to differ with you. I’ve been told quite the opposite and we have witnesses that are saying quite the opposite.
“A. That I had seen the shooting?
“Q. So why don’t you take a deep breath, like I told you before, the very best thing is to be honest.... You can’t have that many people get involved in a murder and expect that some of them aren’t going to tell the truth, okay? Now granted if it was maybe one person, you might be able to keep your fingers crossed and say, god I hope he doesn’t tell the truth, but the problem is is that they have to tell the truth, okay? Now all I’m simply doing is giving you the opportunity to tell the truth and when we got that many people telling a story and all of a sudden you tell something way far fetched different.” Id., at 101-102 (punctuation added).
At this point, Alvarado slowly began to change his story. First he acknowledged being present when the carjacking occurred but claimed that he did not know what happened or who had a gun. When he hesitated to say more, Comstock tried to encourage Alvarado to discuss what happened by appealing to his sense of honesty and the need to bring the man who shot Castaneda to justice. See, e. g., id., at 106 (“[W]hat I’m looking for is to see if you’ll tell the truth”); id., at 105-106 (“I know it’s very difficult when it comes time to ‘drop the dime’ on somebody[,] . . . [but] if that had been your parent, your mother, or your brother, or your sister, you would darn well want [the killer] to go to jail ’cause no one has the right to take someone’s life like that.. Alvarado then admitted he had helped the other man try to steal the truck by standing near the passenger side door. Next he admitted that the other man was Paul Soto, that he knew Soto was armed, and that he had helped hide the gun after the murder. Alvarado explained that he had expected Soto to scare the driver with the gun, but that he did not expect Soto to kill anyone. Id., at 127. Toward the end of the interview, Comstock twice asked Alvarado if he needed to take a break. Alvarado declined. When the interview was over, Comstock returned with Alvarado to the lobby of the sheriff’s station where his parents were waiting. Alvarado’s father drove him home.
A few months later, the State of California charged Soto and Alvarado with first-degree murder and attempted robbery. Citing Miranda, supra, Alvarado moved to suppress his statements from the Comstock interview. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the interview was noncustodial. App. 196. Alvarado and Soto were tried together, and Alvarado testified in his own defense. He offered an innocent explanation for his conduct, testifying that he happened to be standing in the parking lot of the mall when a gun went off nearby. The government’s cross-examination relied on Alvarado’s statement to Comstock. Alvarado admitted having made some of the statements but denied others. When Alvarado denied particular statements, the prosecution countered by playing excerpts from the audio recording of the interview.
During cross-examination, Alvarado agreed that the interview with Comstock “was a pretty friendly conversation,” id., at 438, that there was “sort of a free flow between [Alvarado] and Detective Comstock,” id., at 439, and that Alvarado did not “feel coerced or threatened in any way” during the interview, ibid. The jury convicted Soto and Alvarado of first-degree murder and attempted robbery. The trial judge later reduced Alvarado’s conviction to second-degree murder for his comparatively minor role in the offense. The judge sentenced Soto to life in prison and Alvarado to 15-years-to-life.
On direct appeal, the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal (hereinafter state court) affirmed. People v. Soto, 74 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 688 (1999) (unpublished in relevant part). The state court rejected Alvarado’s contention that his statements to Comstock should have been excluded at trial because no Miranda warnings were given. The court ruled Alvarado had not been in custody during the interview, so no warning was required. The state court relied upon the custody test articulated in Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U. S. 99, 112 (1995), which requires a court to consider the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and then determine whether a reasonable person would have felt at liberty to leave. The state court reviewed the facts of the Comstock interview and concluded Alvarado was not in custody. App. to Pet. for Cert. C-17. The court emphasized the absence of any intense or aggressive tactics and noted that Comstock had not told Alvarado that he could not leave. The California Supreme Court denied discretionary review.
Alvarado filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court agreed with the state court that Alvarado was not in custody for Miranda purposes during the interview. Alvarado v. Hickman, No. ED CV-00-326-VAP(E) (2000), App. to Pet. for Cert. B-1 to B-10. “At a minimum,” the District Court added, the deferential standard of review provided by 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d) foreclosed relief. App. to Pet. for Cert. B-7.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Alvarado v. Hickman, 316 F. 3d 841 (2002). First, the Court. of Appeals held that the state court erred in failing to account for Alvarado’s youth and inexperience when evaiuating whether a reasonable person in his position would have felt free to leave. It noted that this Court has considered a suspect’s juvenile status when evaluating the voluntariness of confessions and the waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination. See id., at 843 (citing, inter alia, Haley v. Ohio, 332 U. S. 596, 599-601 (1948), and In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 45 (1967)). The Court of Appeals held that in light of these authorities, Alvarado’s age and experience must be a factor in the Miranda custody inquiry. 316 F. 3d, at 843. A minor with no criminal record would be more likely to feel coerced by police tactics and conclude he is under arrest than would an experienced adult, the Court of Appeals reasoned. This required extra “safeguards ... commensurate with the age and circumstances of a juvenile defendant.” See id., at 850. According to the Court of Appeals, the effect of Alvarado’s age and inexperience was so substantial that it turned the interview into a custodial interrogation.
The Court of Appeals next considered whether Alvarado could obtain relief in light of the deference a federal court must give to a state-court determination on habeas review. The deference required by AEDPA did not bar relief, the Court of Appeals held, because the relevance of juvenile status in Supreme Court case law as a whole compelled the “extension of the principle that juvenile status is relevant” to the context of Miranda custody determinations. 316 F. 3d, at 853. In light of the clearly established law considering juvenile status, it was “simply unreasonable to conclude that a reasonable 17-year-old, with no prior history of arrest or police interviews, would have felt that he was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Id., at 854-855 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We granted certiorari. 539 U. S. 986 (2003).
II
We begin by determining the relevant clearly established law. For purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1), clearly established law as determined by this Court “refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 412 (2000). We look for “the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U. S. 63, 71-72 (2003).
Miranda itself held that preinterrogation warnings are required in the context of custodial interrogations given “the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.” 384 U. S., at 458. The Court explained that “custodial interrogation” meant “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Id., at 444. The Miranda decision did not provide the Court with an opportunity to apply that test to a set of facts.
After Miranda, the Court first applied the custody test in Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U. S. 492 (1977) (per curiam). In Mathiason, a police officer contacted the suspect after a burglary victim identified him. The officer arranged to meet the suspect at a nearby police station. At the outset of the questioning, the officer stated his belief that the suspect was involved in the burglary but that he was not under arrest. During the 30-minute interview, the suspect admitted his guilt. He was then allowed to leave. The Court held that the questioning was not custodial because there was “no indication that the questioning took place in a context where [the. suspect’s] freedom to depart was restricted in any way.” Id., at 495. The Court noted that the suspect had come voluntarily to the police station, that he was informed that he was not under arrest, and that he was allowed to leave at the end of the interview. Ibid.
In California v. Beheler, 463 U. S. 1121 (1983) (per cu-riam), the Court reached the same result in a case with facts similar to those in Mathiason. In Beheler, the state court had distinguished Mathiason based on what it described as differences in the totality of the circumstances. The police interviewed Beheler shortly after the crime occurred; Be-heler had been drinking earlier in the day; he was emotionally distraught; he was well known to the police; and he was a parolee who knew it was necessary for him to cooperate with the police. 463 U. S., at 1124-1125. The Court agreed that “the circumstances of each case must certainly influence” the custody determination, but reemphasized that “the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” Id,., at 1125 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court found the case indistinguishable from Mathiason. It noted that how much the police knew about the suspect and how much time had elapsed after the crime occurred were irrelevant to the custody inquiry. 463 U. S., at 1125.
Our more recent cases instruct that custody must be determined based on how a reasonable person in the suspect’s situation would perceive his circumstances. In Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420 (1984), a police officer stopped a suspected drunk driver and asked him some questions. Although the officer reached the decision to arrest the driver at the beginning of the traffic stop, he did not do so until the driver failed a sobriety test and acknowledged that he had been drinking beer and smoking marijuana. The Court held the traffic stop noncustodial despite the officer’s intent to arrest because he had not communicated that intent to the driver. “A policeman’s unarticulated plan has no bearing on the question whether a suspect was ‘in custody’ at a particular time,” the Court explained. Id., at 442. “[T]he only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.” Ibid. In a footnote, the Court cited a New York state case for the view that an objective test was preferable to a subjective test in part because it does not “ ‘place upon the police the burden of anticipating the frailties or idiosyncrasies of every person whom they question.’” Id., at 442, n. 35 (quoting People v. P., 21 N. Y. 2d 1, 9-10, 233 N. E. 2d 255, 260 (1967)).
Stansbury v. California, 511 U. S. 318 (1994) (per cu-riam), confirmed this analytical framework. Stansbury explained that “the initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.” Id., at 323. Courts must examine “all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation” and determine “how a reasonable person in the position of the individual being questioned would gauge the breadth of his or her freedom of action.” Id., at 322, 325 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
Finally, in Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U. S. 99 (1995), the Court offered the following description of the Miranda custody test:
“Two discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Once the scene is set and the players’ lines and actions are reconstructed, the court must apply an objective test to resolve the ultimate inquiry: was there a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” 516 U. S., at 112 (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted).
We turn now to the case before us and ask if the state-court adjudication of the claim “involved an unreasonable application” of clearly established law when it concluded that Alvarado was not in custody. 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). See Williams, 529 U. S., at 413 (“Under the ‘unreasonable application’ clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing principle from this Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case”). The term “ ‘unreasonable’ ” is “a common term in the legal world and, accordingly, federal judges are familiar with its meaning.” Id., at 410. At the same time, the range of reasonable judgment can depend in part on the nature of the relevant rule. If a legal rule is specific, the range may be narrow. Applications of the rule may be plainly correct or incorrect. Other rules are more general, and their meaning must emerge in application over the course of time. Applying a general standard to a specific case can demand a substantial element of judgment. As a result, evaluating whether a rule application was unreasonable requires considering the rule’s specificity. The more general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations. Cf. Wright v. West, 505 U. S. 277, 308-309 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment).
Based on these principles, we conclude that the state court’s application of our clearly established law was reasonable. Ignoring the deferential standard of § 2254(d)(1) for the moment, it can be said that fairminded jurists could disagree over whether Alvarado was in custody. On one hand, certain facts weigh against a finding that Alvarado was in custody. The police did not transport Alvarado to the station or require him to appear at a particular time. Cf. Mathiason, 429 U. S., at 495. They did not threaten him or suggest he would be placed under arrest. Ibid. Alvarado’s parents remained in the lobby during the interview, suggesting that the interview would be brief. See Berkemer, supra, at 441-442. In fact, according to trial counsel for Alvarado, he and his parents were told that the interview was “ ‘not going to be long.’ ” App. 186. During the interview, Comstock focused on Soto’s crimes rather than Alvarado’s. Instead of pressuring Alvarado with the threat of arrest and prosecution, she appealed to his interest in telling the truth and being helpful to a police officer. Cf. Mathiason, supra, at 495. In addition, Comstock twice asked Alvarado if he wanted to take a break. At the end of the interview, Alvarado went home. App. 186. All of these objective facts are consistent with an interrogation environment in which a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interview and leave. Indeed, a number of the facts echo those of Mathiason, a per curiam summary reversal in which we found it “clear from these facts” that the suspect was not in custody. 494 U. S., at 495.
Other facts point in the opposite direction. Comstock interviewed Alvarado at the police station. The interview lasted two hours, four times longer than the 30-minute interview in Mathiason. Unlike the officer in Mathiason, Comstock did not tell Alvarado that he was free to leave. Alvarado was brought to the police station by his legal guardians rather than arriving on his own accord, making the extent of his control over his presence unclear. Counsel for Alvarado alleges that Alvarado’s parents asked to be present at the interview but were rebuffed, a fact that — if known to Alvarado — might reasonably have led someone in Alvarado’s position to feel more restricted than otherwise. These facts weigh in favor of the view that Alvarado was in custody.
These differing indications lead us to hold that the state court’s application of our custody standard was reasonable. The Court of Appeals was nowhere close to the mark when it concluded otherwise. Although the question of what an “unreasonable application” of law . might be is difficult in some cases, it is not difficult here. The custody test is general, and the state court’s application of our law fits within the matrix of our prior decisions. We cannot grant relief under AEDPA by conducting our own independent inquiry into whether the state court was correct as a de novo matter. “[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the state-court decision applied [the law] incorrectly.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U. S. 19, 24-25 (2002) (per curiam). Relief is available under § 2254(d)(1) only if the state court’s decision is objectively unreasonable. See Williams, 529 U. S., at 410; Andrade, 538 U. S., at 75. Under that standard, relief cannot be granted.
III
The Court of Appeals reached the opposite result by placing considerable reliance on Alvarado’s age and inexperience with law enforcement. Our Court has not stated that a suspect’s age or experience is relevant to the Miranda custody analysis, and counsel for Alvarado did not press the importance of either factor on direct appeal or in habeas proceedings. According to the Court of Appeals, however, our Court’s emphasis on juvenile status in other contexts demanded consideration of Alvarado’s age and inexperience here. The Court of Appeals viewed the state court’s failure to “ ‘extend a clearly established legal principle [of the relevance of juvenile status] to a new context’ ” as objectively unreasonable in this case, requiring issuance of the writ. 316 F. 3d, at 853 (quoting Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F. 3d 568, 578 (CA9 2000)).
The petitioner contends that if a habeas court must extend a rationale before it can apply to the facts at hand then the rationale cannot be clearly established at the time of the state-court decision. Brief for Petitioner 10-24. See also Hawkins v. Alabama, 318 F. 3d 1302, 1306, n. 3 (CA11 2003) (asserting a similar argument). There is force to this argument. Section 2254(d)(1) would be undermined if habeas courts introduced rules not clearly established under the guise of extensions to existing law. Cf. Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989). At the same time, the difference between applying a rule and extending it is not always clear. Certain principles are fundamental enough that when new factual permutations arise, the necessity to apply the earlier rule will be beyond doubt.
This is not such a case, however. Our opinions applying the Miranda custody test have not mentioned the suspect’s age, much less mandated its consideration. The only indications in the Court’s opinions relevant to a suspect’s experience with law enforcement have rejected reliance on such factors. See Beheler, 463 U. S., at 1125 (rejecting a lower court’s view that the defendant’s prior interview with the police was relevant to the custody inquiry); Berkemer, 468 U. S., at 442, n. 35 (citing People v. P., 21 N. Y. 2d, at 9-10, 233 N. E. 2d, at 260, which noted the difficulties of a subjective test that would require police to “ ‘anticipate] the frailties or idiosyncrasies of every person whom they question’ ”); 468 U. S., at 430-432 (describing a suspect’s criminal past and police record as a circumstance “unknowable to the police”).
There is an important conceptual difference between the Miranda custody test and the line of cases from other contexts considering age and experience. The Miranda custody inquiry is an objective test. As we stated in Keohane, “[o]nce the scene is set and the players’ lines and actions are reconstructed, the court must apply an objective test to resolve the ultimate inquiry.” 516 U. S., at 112 (internal quotation marks omitted). The objective test furthers “the clarity of [Miranda’s] rule,” Berkemer, 468 U. S., at 430, ensuring that the police do not need “to make guesses as to [the circumstances] at issue before deciding how they may interrogate the suspect,” id., at 431. To be sure, the line between permissible objective facts and impermissible subjective experiences can be indistinct in some cases. It is possible to subsume a subjective factor into an objective test by making the latter more specific in its formulation. Thus the Court of Appeals styled its inquiry as an objective test by considering what a “reasonable 17-year-old, with no prior history of arrest or police interviews,” would perceive. 316 F. 3d, at 854-855 (case below).
At the same time, the objective Miranda custody inquiry could reasonably be viewed as different from doctrinal tests that depend on the actual mindset of a particular suspect, where we do consider a suspect’s age and experience. For example, the voluntariness of a statement is often said to depend on whether “the defendant’s will was overborne,” Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U. S. 528, 534 (1963), a question that logically can depend on “the characteristics of the accused,” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 226 (1973). The characteristics of the accused can include the suspect’s age, education, and intelligence, see ibid., as well as a suspect’s prior experience with law enforcement, see Lynumn, supra, at 534. In concluding that there was “no principled reason” why such factors should not also apply to the Miranda custody inquiry, 316 F. 3d, at 850, the Court of Appeals ignored the argument that the custody inquiry states an objective rule designed to give clear guidance to the police, while consideration of a suspect’s individual characteristics — including his age — could be viewed as creating a subjective inquiry. Cf. Mathiason, 429 U. S., at 495-496 (noting that facts arguably relevant to whether an environment is coercive may have “nothing to do with whether respondent was in custody for purposes of the Miranda rule”). For these reasons, the state court’s failure to consider Alvarado’s age does not provide a proper basis for finding that the state court’s decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established law.
Indeed, reliance on Alvarado’s prior history with law enforcement was improper not only under the deferential standard of 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1), but also as a de novo matter. In most eases, police officers will not know a suspect’s interrogation history. See Berkemer, supra, at 430-431. Even if they do, the relationship between a suspect’s past experiences and the likelihood a reasonable person with that experience would feel free to leave often will be speculative. True, suspects with prior law enforcement experience may understand police procedures and reasonably feel free to leave unless told otherwise. On the other hand, they may view past as prologue and expect another in a string of arrests. We do not ask police officers to consider these contingent psychological factors when deciding when suspects should be advised of their Miranda rights. See Berkemer, supra, at 431-432. The inquiry turns too much on the suspect’s subjective state of mind and not enough on the “objective circumstances of the interrogation.” Stansbury, 511 U. S., at 323.
The state court considered the proper factors and reached a reasonable conclusion. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the respondent of the case. The respondent is the party being sued or tried and is also known as the appellee. Characterize the respondent as the Court's opinion identifies them.
Identify the respondent by the label given to the party in the opinion or judgment of the Court except where the Reports title a party as the "United States" or as a named state. Textual identification of parties is typically provided prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. The official syllabus, the summary that appears on the title page of the case, may be consulted as well. In describing the parties, the Court employs terminology that places them in the context of the specific lawsuit in which they are involved. For example, "employer" rather than "business" in a suit by an employee; as a "minority," "female," or "minority female" employee rather than "employee" in a suit alleging discrimination by an employer.
Also note that the Court's characterization of the parties applies whether the respondent is actually single entitiy or whether many other persons or legal entities have associated themselves with the lawsuit. That is, the presence of the phrase, et al., following the name of a party does not preclude the Court from characterizing that party as though it were a single entity. Thus, identify a single respondent, regardless of how many legal entities were actually involved. If a state (or one of its subdivisions) is a party, note only that a state is a party, not the state's name. | Who is the respondent of the case? | [
"attorney general of the United States, or his office",
"specified state board or department of education",
"city, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit",
"state commission, board, committee, or authority",
"county government or county governmental unit, except school district",
"court or judicial district",
"state department or agency",
"governmental employee or job applicant",
"female governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority female governmental employee or job applicant",
"not listed among agencies in the first Administrative Action variable",
"retired or former governmental employee",
"U.S. House of Representatives",
"interstate compact",
"judge",
"state legislature, house, or committee",
"local governmental unit other than a county, city, town, township, village, or borough",
"governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact",
"state or U.S. supreme court",
"local school district or board of education",
"U.S. Senate",
"U.S. senator",
"foreign nation or instrumentality",
"state or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate of",
"state college or university",
"United States",
"State",
"person accused, indicted, or suspected of crime",
"advertising business or agency",
"agent, fiduciary, trustee, or executor",
"airplane manufacturer, or manufacturer of parts of airplanes",
"airline",
"distributor, importer, or exporter of alcoholic beverages",
"alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked",
"American Medical Association",
"National Railroad Passenger Corp.",
"amusement establishment, or recreational facility",
"arrested person, or pretrial detainee",
"attorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association",
"author, copyright holder",
"bank, savings and loan, credit union, investment company",
"bankrupt person or business, or business in reorganization",
"establishment serving liquor by the glass, or package liquor store",
"water transportation, stevedore",
"bookstore, newsstand, printer, bindery, purveyor or distributor of books or magazines",
"brewery, distillery",
"broker, stock exchange, investment or securities firm",
"construction industry",
"bus or motorized passenger transportation vehicle",
"business, corporation",
"buyer, purchaser",
"cable TV",
"car dealer",
"person convicted of crime",
"tangible property, other than real estate, including contraband",
"chemical company",
"child, children, including adopted or illegitimate",
"religious organization, institution, or person",
"private club or facility",
"coal company or coal mine operator",
"computer business or manufacturer, hardware or software",
"consumer, consumer organization",
"creditor, including institution appearing as such; e.g., a finance company",
"person allegedly criminally insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial",
"defendant",
"debtor",
"real estate developer",
"disabled person or disability benefit claimant",
"distributor",
"person subject to selective service, including conscientious objector",
"drug manufacturer",
"druggist, pharmacist, pharmacy",
"employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of",
"employer-employee trust agreement, employee health and welfare fund, or multi-employer pension plan",
"electric equipment manufacturer",
"electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company",
"eleemosynary institution or person",
"environmental organization",
"employer. If employer's relations with employees are governed by the nature of the employer's business (e.g., railroad, boat), rather than labor law generally, the more specific designation is used in place of Employer.",
"farmer, farm worker, or farm organization",
"father",
"female employee or job applicant",
"female",
"movie, play, pictorial representation, theatrical production, actor, or exhibitor or distributor of",
"fisherman or fishing company",
"food, meat packing, or processing company, stockyard",
"foreign (non-American) nongovernmental entity",
"franchiser",
"franchisee",
"lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization",
"person who guarantees another's obligations",
"handicapped individual, or organization of devoted to",
"health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor",
"heir, or beneficiary, or person so claiming to be",
"hospital, medical center",
"husband, or ex-husband",
"involuntarily committed mental patient",
"Indian, including Indian tribe or nation",
"insurance company, or surety",
"inventor, patent assigner, trademark owner or holder",
"investor",
"injured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related",
"juvenile",
"government contractor",
"holder of a license or permit, or applicant therefor",
"magazine",
"male",
"medical or Medicaid claimant",
"medical supply or manufacturing co.",
"racial or ethnic minority employee or job applicant",
"minority female employee or job applicant",
"manufacturer",
"management, executive officer, or director, of business entity",
"military personnel, or dependent of, including reservist",
"mining company or miner, excluding coal, oil, or pipeline company",
"mother",
"auto manufacturer",
"newspaper, newsletter, journal of opinion, news service",
"radio and television network, except cable tv",
"nonprofit organization or business",
"nonresident",
"nuclear power plant or facility",
"owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels",
"shareholders to whom a tender offer is made",
"tender offer",
"oil company, or natural gas producer",
"elderly person, or organization dedicated to the elderly",
"out of state noncriminal defendant",
"political action committee",
"parent or parents",
"parking lot or service",
"patient of a health professional",
"telephone, telecommunications, or telegraph company",
"physician, MD or DO, dentist, or medical society",
"public interest organization",
"physically injured person, including wrongful death, who is not an employee",
"pipe line company",
"package, luggage, container",
"political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official",
"indigent, needy, welfare recipient",
"indigent defendant",
"private person",
"prisoner, inmate of penal institution",
"professional organization, business, or person",
"probationer, or parolee",
"protester, demonstrator, picketer or pamphleteer (non-employment related), or non-indigent loiterer",
"public utility",
"publisher, publishing company",
"radio station",
"racial or ethnic minority",
"person or organization protesting racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination",
"racial or ethnic minority student or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"realtor",
"journalist, columnist, member of the news media",
"resident",
"restaurant, food vendor",
"retarded person, or mental incompetent",
"retired or former employee",
"railroad",
"private school, college, or university",
"seller or vendor",
"shipper, including importer and exporter",
"shopping center, mall",
"spouse, or former spouse",
"stockholder, shareholder, or bondholder",
"retail business or outlet",
"student, or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"taxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only",
"tenant or lessee",
"theater, studio",
"forest products, lumber, or logging company",
"person traveling or wishing to travel abroad, or overseas travel agent",
"trucking company, or motor carrier",
"television station",
"union member",
"unemployed person or unemployment compensation applicant or claimant",
"union, labor organization, or official of",
"veteran",
"voter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)",
"wholesale trade",
"wife, or ex-wife",
"witness, or person under subpoena",
"network",
"slave",
"slave-owner",
"bank of the united states",
"timber company",
"u.s. job applicants or employees",
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"General Land Office of Commissioners",
"Transportation Security Administration",
"Surface Transportation Board",
"U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.",
"Reconstruction Finance Corp.",
"Department or Secretary of Homeland Security",
"Unidentifiable",
"International Entity"
] | [
28
] | sc |
SAXBE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. BUSTOS et al.
No. 73-300.
Argued October 17, 1974
Decided November 25, 1974
Douglas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Stewart, Powell, and Rehnquist, JJ., joined. White, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ., joined, post, p. 80.
Mark L. Evans argued the cause for petitioners in No. 73-300 and respondents in No. 73-480. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Petersen, Deputy Solicitor General Lajontant, Jerome M. Feit, and Charles Gordon.
Bruce J. Terris argued the cause for respondents in No. 73-300 and petitioners in No. 73-480. With him on the brief were John W. Karr and Joseph Onek.
Together with No. 73-480, Cardona et al. v. Saxbe, Attorney General, et al., also on certiorari to the same court. .
Briefs of amici curiae were filed by J. Albert Woll, Laurence Gold,, and Thomas E. Harris for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; by Ronald H. Bonaparte, John A. Joannes, Milton C. Gelenian, Thomas F. Olson, and Allen Lauter-bach for the American Farm Bureau Federation et al.; and by Richard D. Maltzman and Philip B. Bass for Bud Antle, Inc.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Some aliens who have their homes in Canada or Mexico commute daily to places of employment in this country and others do so on a seasonal basis, a practice permitted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The question is whether the practice on the facts of these cases conforms with the Immigration and Nationality Act. It turns on the meaning of § 101 (a)(27.)(B), 66 Stat. 169, as amended, 79 Stat. 916, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (a)(27)(B), which defines as one variety of “special immigrant” an immigrant “lawfully admitted for permanent residence, who is returning from a temporary visit abroad.”
Those who qualify under § 1101 (a)(27)(B) may be permitted entry without the usual documentation requirements. 8 U. S. C. § T181 (b). The regulations implement § 1181 (b) by allowing such an immigrant to use an alien registration receipt card, normally called a “green card,” in lieu of an immigrant visa and without regard to numerical limitations if he is “returning to an unrelinquished lawful permanent residence in the United States after a temporary absence abroad not exceeding 1 year.”
The Act presumes that an alien is an immigrant “until he establishes . . . that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status”; and it defines “immigrant” as every alien who cannot bring himself into an enumerated class of non-immigrants. One class of nonimmigrants is “an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning . . . (ii) who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform temporary services or labor, if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country.”
An alien does not qualify as a nonimmigrant under this class of nonimmigrants if he seeks to perform temporary labor at a time when unemployed persons capable of performing that labor can be found in this country. If he cannot qualify as a nonimmigrant some other way, such an alien is subject to the Act’s numerical limitations, unless he is included in the classes of “immediate relatives” of a United States citizen or “special immigrants.” On the other hand, as already noted, one variety of “special immigrant” is an alien “lawfully admitted for permanent residence, who is returning from a temporary visit abroad.” One who so qualifies is excluded from the labor certification provisions in 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (a) (14). The term “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” is defined as “the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant..., such status not having changed.” An alien achieves that status in the first instance by complying with any applicable numerical limitations and with the Act’s other requirements for admission, details not important here. After his initial admission on that basis, he is free to leave this country temporarily and to re-enter without regard to numerical limitations. The Act authorizes the Attorney General to re-admit such an alien without a visa or other formal documentation. § 1181 (b). He has exercised that authority, allowing such an immigrant to return with what was called in the briefs and oral argument the “green card.”
This suit was brought by the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee for declaratory and injunctive relief against the practice of giving alien commuters the documentation and labor certification benefits of classification as immigrants “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” who are “returning from a temporary visit abroad.” The District Court dismissed the action without opinion. The Court of Appeals held that the admission of daily commuters was proper but that the admission of seasonal commuters was not, 156 U. S. App. D. C. 304, 481 F. 2d 479 (1973). We granted the petition and cross-petition in light of a conflict between the decision below and that of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Gooch v. Clark, 433 F. 2d 74 (1970).
Our conclusions are that commuters are immigrants, that they are “lawfully admitted for permanent residence,” and that they are “returning from a temporary visit abroad” when they enter the United States. Moreover, the wording and legislative history of the statute and the long administrative construction indicate that the same treatment is appropriate for both daily and seasonal commuters. Commuters are thus different from those groups of aliens who can be admitted only on certification by the Secretary of Labor that unemployed persons cannot be found in this country and that the employment of the aliens “will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of the workers in the United States.” 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (a)(14). We thus agree with the con-elusion of the Ninth Circuit in Gooch. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment now before us as respects daily commuters and reverse it as respects seasonal commuters.
A main reliance of plaintiffs is on the provision of the Act which in the much-discussed subsection (15) (H) (ii) provides that one category of alien .nonimmi-grant is “an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning ... (ii) who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform temporary services or labor, if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country.” Under the argument tendered, these alien commuters partially meet the definition of nonimmigrants in subsection (15)(H)(ii) in that they-have a foreign residence which they do not intend to abandon and come here temporarily to perform temporary service, but fail to satisfy subsection (15) (H) (ii) completely in that they do not show that unemployed people capable of performing the services cannot be found in this Nation. That should invoke the presumption in the Act, already noted, that an alien is an immigrant until or unless he proves he is a nonimmigrant.
We agree, moreover, with the Ninth Circuit that this provision “was intended to confer nonimmigrant status on certain aliens who were needed in the American labor force but who, unlike commuters, would be unable to achieve admittance under immigrant status.” 433 F. 2d, at 78. The administrative construction of this subsection (15)(H)(ii) by the Immigration Service has been that it does not cover an alien, like the commuter, who has a “permanent residence” here and who comes to perform a job of a permanent character, even though the period of his service is limited. To repeat, the Act provides that “[ejvery alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer . .. and the immigration officers ... that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 1101 (a) (15).” Before an alien can be classified as a nonimmi-grant under subsection (15)(H)(ii) his prospective employer must submit a petition on his behalf under 8 U. S. C. § 1184 (c); and after the INS approves the petition, the alien must apply for nonimmigrant status and demonstrate that he in fact qualifies for that status.
We conclude that commuters are not nonimmigrants under subsection (15)(H)(ii). None of the other categories of nonimmigrants are applicable, and thus under § 1184 (b) the commuters are immigrants.
The fact that an alien commuter who has not shown he must be classified as a nonimmigrant must be classified as an immigrant is not the end of our problem. The question remains whether he may properly be treated as one who is in the group defined as “special immigrants” under subsection (27)(B), that is, whether commuters are “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” when they have no actual residence in this country.
Section 1101 (a) (20) defines “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” as “the status of having been lawfully accorded the ■privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed” (italics added). The definition makes the phrase descriptive of a status or privilege which need not be reduced to a permanent residence to be satisfied, so long as that status has not changed.
One argument of the plaintiffs is that the status has changed because residence in this country was never claimed. But we read the Act as did the Ninth Circuit in the Gooch case to mean that the change in status which Congress had in mind was a change from an immigrant lawfully admitted for permanent residence to the status of a nonimmigrant pursuant to 8 U. S. C. § 1257. 433 F. 2d, at 79.
The status referred to in § 1101 (a) (20) is acquired when an alien satisfies (1) any numerical limitations on the entry of immigrants, (2) requirements as to qualitative matters such as health, morals, and economic status, and (3) the need for an immigrant visa. The applicant must also state whether he plans to remain in the United States permanently. But the Act does not declare or suggest that the status will be denied him, if he does not intend to reside permanently here. As we read the Act, the “status” acquired carries several important privileges: He may remain in the United States indefinitely; he is free to work in this country; he may return to this country after a temporary absence abroad; and he has the privilege of establishing a permanent residence in the United States.
Thus we conclude that commuters are immigrants “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” As did both the majority and dissent in Gooch, we also find that commuters can be viewed as “returning from a temporary visit abroad.” 433 F. 2d, at 79-81, 82 n. 1. The court below so agreed as respects daily commuters, disagreeing only as to seasonal commuters. Neither the court below nor the Court of Appeals in Gooch took the position now taken in dissent here.
Our conclusion reflects the administrative practice, dating back at least to 1927 when the Bureau of Immigration was a part of the Department of Labor. In 1940 the Bureau was transferred to the Department of Justice where it remains today. On April 1,1927, it issued General Order No. 86. Under the order, commuters were required to gain admission as immigrants before they could have border crossing privileges. The order provides that “[a]liens who have complied with the requirements of this General Order governing permanent admission will be considered as having entered for permanent residence.” “Thus,” said the Court of Appeals in the instant cases, “the daily commuter was born,” 156 U. S. App. D. C., at 304, 481 F. 2d, at 485.
This longstanding administrative construction is entitled to great weight, particularly when, as here, Congress has revisited the Act and left the practice untouched. Such a history of administrative construction and congressional acquiescence may add a gloss or qualification to what is on its face unqualified statutory language. Massachusetts Trustees v. United States, 377 U. S. 235 (1964); United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459 (1915). As the defendants below acknowledge, the meaning of the phrase “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” in § 1101 (a)(27)(B) may not be identical to the meaning of the same language in other sections of the Act where the same history of administrative construction is not present.
We see no difference in the treatment of daily commuters and seasonal commuters. The status of the seasonal! commuter is the same as the status of the daily commuter because the identical statutory words cover each. The Court of Appeals, however, rested essentially on a different legislative history of seasonal commuters than had obtained in cases of daily commuters.
Prior to 1917 there were essentially no limitations on the practice of commuting from Mexico or Canada to the United States. Legislation was passed in 1917, 1921, and 1924. But under those statutes commuters remained able freely to cross the border subject only to qualitative restrictions in the 1917 Act.
As already noted, the administrative approach changed in 1927 when the Bureau of Immigration issued its General Order No. 86. While the 1952 Act, 66 Stat. 163, made no mention of commuters and while the 1965 amendments of the 1952 Act, 79 Stat. 911, were likewise silent as respects commuters, the Court of Appeals assumed that the longstanding practice of allowing daily commuters was not repealed sub silentio; and we agree. The Court of Appeals, however, took quite a different view of the seasonal commuter problem because of its different history.
The seasonal commuter problem dates back at least to 1943 when this Government and Mexico agreed to the seasonal importation of Mexican agricultural workers. 56 Stat. 1759. Congress legislated on the problem in 1951, requiring farmers in this Nation to make reasonable efforts to attract domestic workers prior to certification by the Secretary of Labor of the need for foreign labor. That was known as the bracero program and the Court of Appeals called the seasonal commuter merely a new name for the former bracero. That is quite inaccurate. The braceros were at the start nonimmigrants; the seasonal commuters were immigrants. Some braceros, indeed quite a few, H. R. Rep. No. 722, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1963), acquired permanent residence status. The seasonal commuter, like the daily commuter, has always been in that category.
In 1964 the bracero type of seasonal program lapsed; and the next year Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act by making stricter the certification by the Secretary of Labor of the need for foreign labor and requiring findings on the lack of any adverse effect of the employment of aliens on the wages and working conditions of workers in this country.
But that provision, which we have quoted, does not apply to aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence returning from a temporary visit abroad and to certain close relatives. An alien' who first sought admission after the effective date of the 1965 Amendment would need a certificate of the Secretary of Labor; but if he already was an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence and returning from a temporary visit abroad, the 1965 amendments would not affect him. The purpose of Congress was to limit new admissions of alien laborers, not to prejudice the status of aliens who, whether daily or seasonal commuters, had acquired permanent residence here and were returning to existing jobs.
We have mentioned General Order No. 86 issued on April 1,1927, which treated the commuters as immigrants (not nonimmigrants), who on obtaining their admission cards would be “considered as having entered for permanent residence.” Cf. Karnuth v. United States ex rel. Albro, 279 U. S. 231, 244 (1929). The thrust of General Order No. 86 was to lift aliens who were natives of Canada and Mexico from the quota provisions for non-immigrants. Thus, they entered from that time down to date, with nonquota immigration documents. That regulation was carried forward in various regulations before 1952. The practice was reviewed ánd sustained in various published administrative decisions. Some suggested that the 1952 Act eliminated the alien commuter. The Board of Immigration Appeals, however, reaffirmed the validity of the practice. Matter of H - O -, 5 I. & N. Dec. 716 (1954). Thereafter repeated administrative decisions affirmed the adherence to the alien-commuter concept. We do not labor the administrative construction phase of these cases further, because when the 1952 Act was reported, the Senate Judiciary Committee tendered a voluminous report of nearly 1,000 pages touching on the alien commuters, describing the practice in some detail, and including the sections which we have discussed in this opinion. The commuters from Canada and Mexico were treated as lawfully admitted immigrants. No doubt as to the desirability of the practice was expressed. It is clear that S. Rep. No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. (1950) (the Omnibus Study Report), reveals a congressional acceptance of the system.
The changes relevant to commuters in the 1965 amendments were, as stated in Gooch, minor and technical and contain no suggestion of a change in the commuter problem, 433 F. 2d, at 80-81. H. R. Rep. No. 745, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965); S. Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965).
Since 1965 there have been numerous reports by committees of the Congress on the alien commuter problem which indicate that Congress is very knowledgeable about the problem and has not reached a consensus that the administrative policy reaching back at least to General Order No. 86 is wrong. We know from the Western Hemisphere Report that the dimensions of the problem are considerable. Daily commuters from Mexico number more than 42,000 of whom 25,000 are engaged in occupations other than agriculture. The total of Canadian commuters exceeds 10,000. Seasonal commuters number at least 8.300 according to the Service’s estimate. The United States Commission on Civil Rights estimates that if Mexican commuters were cut off, they would lose $50 million annually. The State Department estimates there are 250,000 family members dependent on income earned by commuters and that commuters account for 25% to 30% of the income earned by the labor force in some Mexican border communities. Termination of the alien commuter practice might well have a great impact on American border communities because the Mexicans who have the status of permanent residents could settle here, increasing the problems of housing and education in the border towns this side of the Rio Grande. Former Secretary of State Rogers submitted to the District Court an affidavit stating that any “sudden judicial termination of the commuter system, displacing the present immigrant commuters, would have a serious deleterious effect upon our relations with both Mexico and Canada.”
Our conclusion is twofold. First, the provisions of the Act which sanction daily commuters are the ones that also support seasonal commuters. We would have to read the same language in two opposed ways to sanction the daily commuter program and strike down the seasonal commuter program. There is no difference in administrative treatment of the two classes of commuters.
Second, if alien commuters are to be abolished or if seasonal commuters are to be treated differently from daily commuters, the Congress must do it. The changes suggested implicate so many policies and raise so many problems of a political, economic, and social nature that it is fit that the Judiciary recuse itself. At times judges must legislate “interstitially” to resolve ambiguities in laws. But the problem of taking all or some alien commuters engaging in farm work out of the Act is not “interstitial” or, as Mr. Justice Holmes once put it, “molecular.” It is a massive or “molar” action for which the Judiciary is ill-equipped.
We affirm the Court of Appeals insofar as it held daily commuters are lawfully admitted and reverse it insofar as seasonal commuters are concerned.
So ordered.
8 CFR §211.1 (b)(1).
8 U. S. C. §§ 1181 (a) and 1151-1153.
§ 1184(b).
§ HOI (a) (15).
§ 1101 (a) (15) (H). Legislation proposed in 1973 would limit the stay of these nonimmigrants to one year with possible extension to two years. H. R. Rep. No. 93-461, p. 16 (1973).
8 U. S. C. §1101 (a) (15) (H) (ii).
§ 1151 (a).
§ 1101 (a)(27)(B). The 1973 House Report, supra, n. 5, at 16, recognizes the difference between a “special immigrant” and non-immigrants covered by § 1101 (a)(15)(H).
“Title 8 U. S. C. §1182 (a)(14) provides:
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the following classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States:
“(14) Aliens seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and to the Attorney General that (A) there are not sufficient workers in the United States who are able, willing, qualified, and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place to which the alien is destined to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and (B) the employment of such aliens will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of the workers in the United States similarly employed.”
§1101 (a) (20).
A collective-bargaining agent for farmworkers. Two farm laborers were also plaintiffs and four more intervened in the District Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were in the District Court.
In the District Court and the Court of Appeals plaintiffs also argued that 8 CFR § 211.1 (b) (1) should be read to preclude the entry of a commuter to work at a place where a labor dispute exists, even if the commuter has previously been employed there. This claim was not decided by the Court of Appeals and was not presented in plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari. Hence we offer no views on the merits of this claim.
8 U. S. C. §1101 (a) (15) (H).
§1184 (b).
Matter of Contopoulos, 10 I. & N. Dec. 654 (1964).
8 U. S. C. §1184 (b).
1 C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 2.14b (rev. ed. 1974).
The subsection is in 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (a).
8 U. S. C. §1151 (a).
§ 1182.
§§ 1181 (a), 1201.
§1202 (a).
See 32 Stat. 826 ; 34 Stat. 596; c. 141, 37 Stat. 736.
By then it was called the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Reorganization Plan No. V, 54 Stat. 1238.
General Order No. 86 reads as follows:
“Subject: Land border crossing procedure
"1. Hereafter aliens residing in foreign contiguous countries and entering the United States to engage in existing employment or to seek employment in this country will not be considered as visiting the United States temporarily as tourists, or temporarily for business or pleasure, under any provisions of the Immigration Law which exempt visitors from complying with certain requirements thereof; that is, they will be considered as aliens of the ‘immigrant’ class.
“2, However, the following aliens of the said ‘immigrant’ class residing in foreign contiguous countries and who are now enjoying the border crossing privilege may continue so to enjoy it upon the payment of head tax, provided such head tax was assessible [sic] on aliens entering permanently at the time of original admission and, provided further, that they are not coming to seek employment.
“A. Aliens whose original admission occurred prior to June 3,1921.
“B. Natives of nonquota countries whose original admission occurred prior to July 1,1924.
“3. Aliens of all nationalities of the ‘immigrant’ class whose original admission occurred subsequent to June 30, 1924, will be required to meet all provisions of the Immigration Laws applying to aliens of the ‘immigrant’ class. Aliens of this class already enjoying the border crossing privilege, however, will be granted a reasonable time, not to exceed six months from July 1, 1927, within which to obtain immigration visas and otherwise comply with the laws.
“4. Aliens who have already complied with the requirements of the Immigration Laws and this General Order may be permitted to continue to enjoy the border crossing privilege.
“5. Aliens who have complied with the requirements of this General Order governing permanent admission will be considered as having entered for permanent residence.
“6. The use and issuance of identification cards to all classes of aliens entitled to same will continue as heretofore.
“7. Identification cards held by or issued to aliens of the 'immigrant' class shall be rubber-stamped as follows:
“IMMIGRANT
“10. All identification cards heretofore issued, held by aliens who cannot, or do not, meet the requirements of law, regulations and this order, will be taken up and canceled upon an incoming trip of the holder and appropriate action taken.
“12. The status of holders of identification cards shall be inquired into periodically .... When the holder of a 'nonimmigrant' identification card qualifies as an 'immigrant,' a new identification card shall be issued, stamped to show the correct status.”
C. 29, 39 Stat. 874; 42 Stat. 5; c. 190, 43 Stat. 153.
65 Stat. 119.
N. 9, supra. See 1 Gordon & Rosenfield, supra, n. 17, § 2.40.
We find in the reports on the 1965 Act no suggestion that the commuter program was to be uprooted in its entirety, S. Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). That report emphasizes the purpose to prevent an “influx” of foreign labor, not to destroy existing labor arrangements. Id., at 15.
For the text of General Order No. 86 see n. 25, supra.
The aliens in Karnuth wanted to be treated as nonimmigrants. One of the categories of nonimmigrants under § 3 of the Immigration Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 154, was defined as “an alien visiting the United States temporarily ... for business or pleasure.” The Court held they did not qualify as laborers for hire.
Immigration Rules and Regulations, Jan. 1, 1930, Rule 3, Subd. C; 8 CFR § 3.6 (1939); 8 CFR § 110.6 (1947).
Matter of D -- C -, 3 I. & N. Dec. 519 (1949); Matter of L.-, 4 I. & N. Dec. 454 (1951).
Matter of M-D -S-, 8 I. & N. Dec. 209 (1958); Matter of Bailey, 11 I. & N. Dec. 466 (1966); Matter of Burciaga-Salcedo, 11 I. & N. Dec. 665 (1966); Matter of Gerhard, 12 I, & N. Dec. 556 (1967); Matter of Wighton, 13 I. & N. Dec. 683 (1971); Matter of Hoffman-Arvayo, 13 I. & N. Dec. 750 (1971).
Report of Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration 104 (196S). See S. Rep. No. 91-83. p. 65 (1969), stating that the alien commuter problem “can be resolved not by drastically putting an end to the commuter system, but by refining its current operations.” See Hearings on H. R. 9112, H. R. 15092, H. R. 17370 before Subcommittee No. 1 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 205-207.
Stranger in One’s Land 12 (Clearinghouse Publication No. 19, 1970).
Statement of Assistant Secretary of State Oliver to the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Sept. 25,1967, p. 6.
Id., at 4.
“I recognize without hesitation that judges do and must legislate, but they can do so only interstitially; they are confined from molar to molecular motions.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, 221 (1917) (dissenting opinion). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the federal agency involved in the administrative action that occurred prior to the onset of litigation. If the administrative action occurred in a state agency, respond "State Agency". Do not code the name of the state. The administrative activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. If two federal agencies are mentioned, consider the one whose action more directly bears on the dispute;otherwise the agency that acted more recently. If a state and federal agency are mentioned, consider the federal agency. Pay particular attention to the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations. | What is the agency involved in the administrative action? | [
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bureau of Prisons",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner or Collector of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Administrative agency established under an interstate compact (except for the MTC)",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration or Board of Veterans' Appeals",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"State Agency",
"Unidentifiable",
"Office of Thrift Supervision",
"Department of Homeland Security",
"Board of General Appraisers",
"Board of Tax Appeals",
"General Land Office or Commissioners",
"NO Admin Action",
"Processing Tax Board of Review"
] | [
67
] | sc |
UNITED STATES v. CORES.
No. 455.
Argued March 13, 1958.
Decided May 19, 1958.
John F. Davis argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General McLean, Beatrice Rosenberg and Carl H. Imlay.
By invitation of the Court, 355 U. S. 887, Clark M. Clifford argued the cause, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below. With him on a brief he filed, as amicus curiae, was Carson M. Glass.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether an alien crewman who willfully remains in the United States in excess of the 29 days allowed by his conditional landing permit, in violation of § 252 (c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is guilty of a continuing offense which may be prosecuted in the district where he is found. Discovering that appellee’s permit had expired before he entered the district where he was apprehended and where the prosecution was begun, the District Court dismissed the criminal information, holding that a violation of § 252 (c) was not a continuing crime. The Government brought direct appeal, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 355 U. S. 866 (1957). Since we conclude that the District Court was in error, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
The information, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, charged that appellee entered the United States at Philadelphia on April 27, 1955, and that 29 days later, at the expiration of his conditional landing permit, he “did wilfully and knowingly remain in the United States, to wit: Bethel, Connecticut,” in violation of § 252 (c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. A plea of guilty was entered, but a government attorney informed the court prior to sentencing that appellee was not in Connecticut at the expiration of his permit as charged in the information, but that in fact he came to Connecticut only after spending about a year in New York. The judge permitted withdrawal of the guilty plea and dismissed the case. He cited an earlier decision of the same court holding that § 252 (c) did not define a continuing crime, United States v. Tavares, No. 9407 Crim., May 6, 1957, and indicated that the information was brought in an improper district since appellee was not in Connecticut at the time his permit expired.
The Constitution makes it clear that determination of proper venue in a criminal case requires determination of where the crime was committed. This principle is reflected in numerous statutory enactments, including Rule 18, Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., which provides that except as otherwise permitted, “the prosecution shall be had in a district in which the offense was committed ....” In ascertaining this locality we are mindful that questions of venue “raise deep issues of public policy in the light of which legislation must be construed.” United States v. Johnson, 323 U. S. 273, 276 (1944). The provision for trial in the vicinity of the crime is a safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place. Provided its language permits, the Act in question should be given that construction which will respect such considerations.
Unlike some statutory offenses, there is an absence here of any specific provision fixing venue, save the general language of the Act providing for venue “at anyplace in the United States at which the violation may occur . ...” In such cases the Court must base its determination on “the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it,” United States v. Anderson, 328 U. S. 699, 703 (1946), and if the Congress is found to have created a continuing offense, “the locality of [the] crime shall extend over the whole area through which force propelled by an offender operates.” United States v. Johnson, supra, at 275.
Section 252 (c) punishes “[a]ny alien crewman who willfully remains in the United States in excess of the number of days allowed.” The conduct proscribed is the affirmative act of willfully remaining, and the crucial word “remains” permits no connotation other than continuing presence. Nor does the section necessarily pertain to any particular locality, such as the place of entry, for the Act broadly extends to willfully remaining “in the United States.” Appellee urges, however, that the offense is completed the moment the permit expires, and that even if the alien remains thereafter, he no longer commits the offense. It is true that remaining at the instant of expiration satisfies the definition of the crime, but it does not exhaust it. See United States v. Kissel, 218 U. S. 601, 607 (1910). It seems incongruous to say that while the alien “willfully remains” on the 29th day when his permit expires, he no longer does so on the 30th, though still physically present in the country. Given the element of willfulness, we believe an alien “remains,” in the contemplation of the statute, until he physically leaves the United States. The crime achieves no finality until such time. Since an offense committed in more than one district “may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was . . . continued,” 18 U. S. C. § 3237, venue for § 252 (c) lies in any district where the crewman willfully remains after the permit expires. Appellee entered Connecticut and was found there, so that district has venue for the prosecution.
The legislative history is not inconsistent with this interpretation of the statute. After a thorough investigation of our immigration laws completed some two years prior to the enactment of § 252 (c), the Senate Committee on the Judiciary reported, “The problems relating to seamen are largely created by those who desert their ships, remain here illegally beyond the time granted them to stay, and become lost in the general populace of the country.” S. Rep. No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 550. The tracing of such persons is complicated by the obscuration worked both by their own movement and by the passage of time. In this atmosphere the Congress sought to establish sanctions for alien crewmen who “willfully remain,” the Senate Committee having observed that traditional remedies for the problem were inadequate because many crewmen “do not have the necessary documents to permit deportation.” Ibid. It is hardly likely that the Congress would create the new sanction only to strip it of much of its effectiveness by compelling trial in the district where the crewman was present when his permit expired — a place which months or years later might well be impossible of proof.
Moreover, we think it not amiss to point out that this result is entirely in keeping with the policy of relieving the accused, where possible, of the inconvenience incident to prosecution in a district far removed from his residence. See Hyde v. Shine, 199 U. S. 62, 78 (1905); Johnston v. United States, 351 U. S. 215, 224 (dissent) (1956). Forcing an alien crewman to trial in the district where he was present at the expiration of his permit could entail much hardship. By holding the crime here to be a continuing one we make a valuable tool of justice available to the crewman. Rule 21 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for transfer of the proceeding to another district on motion of the defendant if it appears that the offense was committed in more than one district, and “if the court is satisfied that in the interest of justice the proceeding should be transferred to another district or division in which the commission of the offense is charged.” The rule, with its inherent flexibility, would be inapplicable absent characterization of the offense as continuing in nature.
Reversed and remanded.
66 Stat. 221, 8 U. S. C. § 1282 (c). Subsection (a) authorizes immigration officers to grant permits, on certain conditions, allowing alien crewmen to land for periods up to 29 days. Subsection (b) details procedures for revocation of permits. Subsection (c) sets out the criminal penalties involved in this case:
“Any alien crewman who willfully remains in the United States in excess of the number of days allowed in any conditional permit issued under subsection (a) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than $500 or shall be imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.”
Appellee suggests that the inconsistency in the date of the offense as alleged in the information and as represented by government counsel provides additional reason for upholding the dismissal. This phase of the case, however, is not before us, United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 206-207 (1939), so we confine our opinion to the point of statutory construction which clearly prompted the dismissal. Any inconsistency may be asserted by appellee on remand. See Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., 7 (e).
“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed U. S. Const., Art. Ill, § 2, el. 3.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . .” U. S. Const., Amend. VI.
See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 659 (theft of goods in interstate commerce) ; 18 U. S. C. § 1073 (flight to avoid prosecution or giving testimony); 18 U. S. C. § 3236 (murder or manslaughter); 18 U. S. C. § 3239 (transmitting or mailing threatening communications); 32 Stat. 847, 34 Stat. 587, 49 U. S. C. §41 (1) (certain violations of Interstate Commerce Act). See 4 Barron, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2061.
§ 279, Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 230, 8 U. S. C. § 1329.
The offense here is unlike crimes of illegal entry set out in §§275 and 276 of the Act. 66 Stat. 229, 8 U. S. C. §§ 1325, 1326. Those offenses are not continuing ones, as “entry” is limited to a particular locality and hardly suggests continuity. Hence a specific venue provision in § 279 of the Act was required before illegal entry cases could be prosecuted at the place of apprehension. 66 Stat. 230, 8 U. S. C. § 1329. This reasoning underlay the request for specific legislation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. See Analysis of S. 3455, 81st Cong., prepared by the General Counsel of the Service, p. 276-2. In contrast to illegal entry, the § 252 (c) offense of willfully remaining is continuing in nature. A specific venue provision would be mere surplusage, since prosecutions may be instituted in any district where the offense has"’been committed, not necessarily the district where the violation first occurred. The absence of such provision, therefore, is without significance. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence. | What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision? | [
"judicial review (national level)",
"judicial review (state level)",
"Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction",
"statutory construction",
"interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order",
"diversity jurisdiction",
"federal common law"
] | [
3
] | sc |
CITY OF FRESNO v. CALIFORNIA et al.
No. 51.
Argued January 7, 1963.
Decided April 15, 1963.
Claude L. Rowe argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was John H. Lauten.
Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States et al., respondents. With him on the brief were J. William Doolittle, William H. Veeder and Roger P. Marquis.
Denver C. Peckinpah, Adolph Moskovitz, James K. Abercrombie, Irl Davis Brett and J. O. Reavis filed a brief for the Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District et al., respondents.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case arises out of No. 31, Dugan v. Rank, decided today, ante, p. 609. As set out in our opinion in that case the original suit was instituted against certain local United States Reclamation Bureau officials and several Irrigation and Utility Districts by a number of claimants to water rights along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam. Subsequently the United States, over its protest, was made a party and the petitioner here, the City of Fresno, intervened as a party plaintiff. Fresno sought, in addition to the injunctive relief requested by the other parties, a declaration as to (1) its water rights as an overlying owner, i. e., rights to underground water fed by the river; (2) its statutory priority, under California law, to the use of water for municipal or domestic purposes, Calif. Water Code, § 1460; (3) its prior right, under the California County of Origin and Watershed Acts, because of its location, Calif. Water Code, §§ 11460, 11463; and (4) its entitlement to project water from the United States at the same rate charged for water delivered for irrigation purposes. In the District Court Fresno prevailed on all points. In the Court of Appeals this judgment was set aside “insofar as it relates to the terms upon which the City of Fresno is entitled to receive water from the United States at Friant Dam,” 293 F. 2d 340, 360, because in establishing the rate at which water would be delivered the respondent officials were acting “within the scope of their statutory authority and were carrying out the duties imposed upon them by their official positions. . . . The complaint of Fresno in this regard is a complaint against the United States and this dispute may not be entertained judicially without a waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the United States.” Id., at 352. With regard to the claim that it enjoyed water rights superior to those of the United States, the Court of Appeals refused to decide, saying on rehearing that “If and when such rights have been established in accordance with state law, Fresno may be able effectively to protest the impounding of waters by these defendants in contravention of such rights.” Id., at 360.
Our opinion in Dugan v. Bank, supra, controls the decision in this case. There we decided that the suit against the United States must fail for lack of consent; that the relief against the Reclamation Bureau officials must also fail as being in truth against the United States; that the United States had seized, in whole or in part, the water rights asserted by the claimants; and that their recourse was through a Tucker Act suit. 28 U. S. C. § 1346. The same is true here.
We agree entirely with the disposition of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner seems to say that § 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, 32 Stat. 390,43 U. S. C. § 383, requires compliance with California statutes relating to preferential rights of counties and watersheds of origin and to the priority of domestic over irrigation uses. However, § 8 does not mean that state law may operate to prevent the United States from exercising the power of eminent domain to acquire the water rights of others. This was settled in Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 357 U. S. 275 (1958). Rather, the effect of § 8 in such a case is to leave to state law the definition of the property interests, if any, for which compensation must be made.
We also note that the County of Origin and Watershed Acts, upon which the city relies, do not grant the preference claimed. Under these statutes the area of preference is "... a watershed or area wherein water originates, or an area immediately adjacent thereto which can conveniently be supplied with water therefrom . . . .” Calif. Water Code, § 11460. The area of service from Friant Dam would include Kern and Tulare Counties as well as Fresno and Madera. (See map in 142 F. Supp., at 40.) The preference under the Acts is not limited to that area closest to the stream, but extends beyond the watershed and to areas adjacent thereto which can “conveniently be supplied with water therefrom,” which from the map would seem to include the Friant-Kern as well as the Madera Canal areas. Likewise, the claim as to the preference of water devoted to domestic uses is unfounded. Section 9 (c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 53 Stat. 1194, as amended, 43 U. S. C. 485h (c), provides: “No contract relating to municipal water supply or miscellaneous purposes . . . shall be made unless, in the judgment of the Secretary [of the Interior], it will not impair the efficiency of the project for irrigation purposes.” In United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725 (1950), we were concerned with an issue regarding the nature of the Friant Dam unit of the Project and, contrary to petitioner’s contention, concluded “that Congress realistically elected to treat it as a reclamation project.” Id., at 739. It therefore appears clear that Fresno has no preferential rights to contract for project water, but may receive it only if, in the Secretary’s judgment, irrigation will not be adversely affected.
As to the rates charged for municipal water, this same §9 (c), supra, delegates authority and discretion to the Secretary of the Interior to fix rates covering irrigation as well as municipal water service. It provides that the yardstick for determining rates shall be such “as in the Secretary’s judgment will produce revenues at least sufficient to cover an appropriate share of the annual operation and maintenance cost and an appropriate share of such fixed charges as the Secretary deems proper . . . .” The Secretary exercised this discretion and so notified the Congress as to the basis for his determination of the appropriate charge for municipal water. Allocation of Costs and Feasibility Report of February 24, 1947, H. R. Doc. No. 146, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 19; 1 Engle, Central Valley Project Doc. (1956), H. R. Doc. No. 416, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. 574, 594-596. This report estimated a rate of $10 per acre-foot for municipal water and about $3 per acre-foot or less for irrigation water. Id., at 594-596. The latter rate was based on farm benefits as well as the ability of the user to pay over a protracted period. It was estimated that this rate would return during the repayment period only about one-fourth of the project capital cost allocated to irrigation. Id., at 576-577, 597. As to municipal rates, the return during the same period was estimated at over three times the project capital cost allocated to the delivery of municipal water. This surplus, together with that from project electric energy, would be used to pay project costs allocated to irrigation but which were beyond the ability of the irrigators to pay. Congress has been kept advised as to the manner in which these rate schedules are operating. 2 Engle, Central Valley Project Doc. (1957), H. R. Doc. No. 246, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 79-84, 261-262.
In accordance with the Secretary’s estimates, long-term contracts for Friant Dam water provide for a rate of $3.50 per acre-foot for Class 1 water and $1.50 for Class 2, while contracts for municipal water supply call for $10 per acre-foot. It appears amply clear that the Reclamation Bureau officials were acting entirely within the scope of their authority in operating the Project in this manner and fixing the rates for water in accordance with congressional mandate, all of which has specifically received our approval in Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, supra, at 295.
The judgment, insofar as it relates to this petition of the City of Fresno, is affirmed and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the same.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The payments for irrigation water amounted to $58,545,475, while project capital cost allocated to irrigation was $221,551,600. Municipal water rates would return $29,667,932, while project capital cost allocated to municipal water supply was $9,091,800. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. If the case arose under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, note the source as "United States Supreme Court". If the case arose in a state court, note the source as "State Supreme Court", "State Appellate Court", or "State Trial Court". Do not code the name of the state. | What is the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims"
] | [
27
] | sc |
KELLEY, COMMISSIONER, SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT v. JOHNSON
No. 74-1269.
Argued December 8, 1975
Decided April 5, 1976
Rehnquist, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Stewart, White, Blacicmun, and Powell, JJ., joined. Powell, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 249. Marshall, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan, J., joined, post, p. 249. Stevens, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Patrick A. Sweeney argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Hoivard E. Packman.
Leonard D. Wexler argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Richard T. Haefeli.
James vanR. Springer filed a brief for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Me. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The District Court for the Eastern District of New York originally dismissed respondent’s complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a regulation promulgated by petitioner limiting the length of a policeman’s hair. On respondent’s appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, that judgment was reversed, and on remand the District Court took testimony and thereafter granted the relief sought by respondent. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and we granted certiorari, 421 U. S. 987 (1975), to consider the constitutional doctrine embodied in the rulings of the Court of Appeals. We reverse.
I
In 1971 respondent’s predecessor, individually and as president of the Suffolk County Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, brought this action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, against petitioner’s predecessor, the Commissioner of the Suffolk County Police Department. The Commissioner had promulgated Order No. 71-1, which established hair-grooming standards applicable to male members of the police force. The regulation was directed at the style and length of hair, sideburns, and mustaches; beards and goatees were prohibited, except for medical reasons; and wigs conforming to the regulation could be worn for cosmetic reasons. The regulation was attacked as violative of respondent patrolman's right of free expression under the First Amendment and his guarantees of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, in that it was “not based upon the generally_accepted standard of grooming in the community” and. .placed “an undue restriction” upon his activities therein. '
The Court of Appeals held that cases characterizing the uniformed civilian services as “para-military,” and sustaining hair regulations on that basis, were not soundly grounded historically. It said that the fact that a police force is organized “with a centralized administration and a disciplined rank and file for efficient conduct of its affairs" did not foreclose respondent’s claim, but instead bore only upon “the existence of a legitimate state interest to be reasonably advanced by the regulation.” Dwen v. Barry, 483 F. 2d 1126, 1128-1129 (1973). The Court of Appeals went on to decide that “choice of personal appearance is an ingredient of an individual’s personal liberty” and is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. It further held that the police department had “failed to make the slightest showing of the relationship between its regulation and the legitimate interest it sought to promote.” Id., at 1130-1131. On the basis of this reasoning it concluded that neither dismissal nor summary judgment in the District Court was appropriate, since the department “has the burden of establishing a genuine public need for the regulation.” Id., at 1131.
Thereafter the District Court, under the compulsion of the remand from the Court of Appeals, took testimony on the question of whether or not there was a “genuine public need.” The sole witness was the Deputy Commissioner of the Suffolk County Police Department, petitioner’s subordinate, who testified as to the police department’s concern for the safety of the patrolmen, and the need for some standards of uniformity in appearance. The District Court held that “[n]o proof” was offered to support any claim of the need for the protection of the police officer, and that while “proper grooming” is an ingredient of a good police department’s esprit de corps, petitioner's standards did not establish a public need because they ultimately reduced to “[ujniformity for uniformity’s sake.” The District Court granted the relief prayed for by respondent, and on petitioner's appeal that judgment was affirmed without opinion by the Court of Appeals. 508 F. 2d 836.
I h-I
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part:
“No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
This section affords not only a procedural guarantee against the deprivation of “liberty,” but likewise protects substantive aspects of liberty against unconstitutional restrictions by the State. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 572 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 502 (1965) (White, J., concurring).
The “liberty” interest claimed by respondent here, of course, is distinguishable from the interests protected by the Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923). Each of those cases involved a substantial claim of infringement on the individual's freedom of choice with respect to certain basic matters of procreation, marriage, and family life. But whether the citizenry at large has some sort of “liberty” interest within the Fourteenth Amendment in matters of personal appearance is a question on which this Court's cases offer little, if any, guidance. We can, nevertheless, assume an affirmative answer for purposes of deciding this case, because we find that assumption insufficient to carry the day for respondent's claim.
Respondent has sought the protectiqn.:Jíf-_the- Fourteenth Amendment, not as a member of the citizenry at large, but on the contrary as an employee of the police department of Suffolk County, a subdivision o'f the State of New York. While the Court of Appeals made passing reference to this distinction, it was thereafter apparently ignored. We think, however, it is highly significant. In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968), after noting that state employment may not be conditioned on the relinquishment of First Amendment rights, the Court stated that “[a]t the same time it cannot be gainsaid that the State has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.” More recently, we have sustained comprehensive and substantial restrictions upon activities of both federal and state employees lying at the core of the First Amendment. CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601 (1973). If such state regulations may survive challenges based on the explicit language of the First Amendment, there is surely even more room fór restrictive regulations of state employees where the claim implicates only the more general contours of the substantive liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The hair-length regulation here touches respondent as ax) employee of the county and, more particularly, as a policeman. Respondent's employer has, in accordance wijth its well-established duty to keep the peace, placed myriad demands upon the members of the police force, duties which have no counterpart with respect to the public at large. Respondent must wear a standard uniform, specific in each detail. When in uniform he must salute the flag. He may not take an active role in local political affairs by way of being a party delegate or contributing or soliciting political contributions. He may not smoke in public. All of these and other regulations of the Suffolk County Police Department infringe on respondent's freedom of choice in personal matters, and it was apparently the view of the Court of Appeals that the burden is on the State to prove a “genuine public need” for each and every one of these regulations.
This view was based upon the Court of Appeals’ reasoning that the “unique judicial deference” accorded by the judiciary to regulation of members of the military was inapplicable because there was no historical or functional justification for the characterization of the police as “para-military.” But the conclusion that such cases are inapposite, however correct, in no way detracts from the deference due Suffolk County’s choice of an organizational structure for its police force. Here the county has chosen a mode of organization which it undoubtedly deems the most efficient in enabling its police to carry out the duties assigned to them under state and local law. Such a choice necessarily gives weight to the overall need for discipline, esprit de corps, and uniformity.
The county’s choice of an organizational structure, therefore, does not depend for its constitutional validity on any doctrine of historical prescription. Nor, indeed, has respondent made any such claim. His argument does not challenge the constitutionality of the organizational structure, but merely asserts that the present hair-length regulation infringes his asserted liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. We believe, however, that the hair-length regulation cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be rather considered in the context of the county’s chosen mode of organization for its police force.
The promotion of safety of persons and property is unquestionably at the core of the State’s police power, and virtually all state and local governments employ a uniformed police force to aid in the accomplishment of that purpose. Choice of organization, dress, and equipment for law enforcement personnel is a decision entitled to the same sort of presumption of legislative validity as are state choices designed to promote other aims within the cognizance of the State’s police power. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U. S. 421, 423 (1952); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 168-170 (1944); Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U. S. 236, 246-247 (1941). Having recognized in other contexts the wide latitude accorded the government in the “dispatch of its own internal affairs,” Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 896 (1961), we think Suffolk County’s police regulations involved here are entitled to similar weight. Thus the question is not, as the Court of Appeals conceived it to be, whether the State can “establish” a “genuine public need” for the specific regulation. It is whether respondent can demonstrate that there is no rational connection between the regulation, based as it is on the county’s method of organizing its police force, and the promotion of safety of persons and property. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 100-101 (1947); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 30-31, 35-37 (1905).
We think the answer here is so clear that the District Court was quite right in the first instance to have dismissed respondent’s complaint. Neither this Court, the Court of Appeals, nor the District Court is in a position to weigh the policy arguments in favor of and against a rule regulating hairstyles as a part of regulations governing a uniformed civilian service. The constitutional issue to be decided by these courts is whether petitioner’s determination that such regulations should be enacted is so irrational that it may be branded “arbitrary,” and therefore a deprivation of respondent’s “liberty” interest in freedom to choose his own hairstyle. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 487-488 (1955). The overwhelming majority of state and local police of the present day are uniformed. This fact itself testifies to the recognition by those who direct those operations, and by the people of the States and localities who directly or indirectly choose such persons, that similarity in appearance of police officers is desirable. This choice may be based on a desire to make police officers readily recognizable to the members of the public, or a desire for the esprit de corps which such similarity is felt to inculcate within the police force itself. Either one is a sufficiently rational justification for regulations so as to defeat respondent’s claim based on the liberty guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court of Appeals relied on Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 (1967), and amicus in its brief in support of respondent elaborates an argument based on the language in Garrity that “policemen, like teachers and lawyers, are not relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights.” Id., at 500. Garrity, of course, involved the protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964). Certainly its language cannot be taken to suggest that the claim of a member of a uniformed civilian service based on the “liberty” interest protected by the Fourteenth-Amaiidment must necessarily be treated for constitutional purposes the same as a similar claim by a member of the general public.
The regulation challenged_here — did- not violate any right guaranteed respondent by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Court of Appeals was therefore wrong in reversing the District Court’s original judgment dismissing the action. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Order No. 71-1 (1971), amending Chapter 2 of the Rules and Procedures, Police Department, County of Suffolk, N. Y., provided:
“2/75.0 Members of the Force and Department shall be neat and clean at all times while on duty. Male personnel shall comply with the following grooming standards unless excluded by the Police Commissioner due to special assignment:
“2/75.1 HAIR: Hair shall be neat, clean, trimmed, and present a groomed appearance. Hair will not touch the ears or the collar except the closely cut hair on the back of the neck. Hair in front will be groomed so that it does not fall below the band of properly worn headgear. In no case will the bulk or length of the hair interfere with the proper wear of any authorized headgear. The acceptability of a member’s hair style will be based upon the criteria in this paragraph and not upon the style in which he chooses to wear his hair.
“2/75.2 SIDEBURNS: If an individual chooses to wear sideburns, they will be neatly trimmed and tapered in the same manner as his haircut. Sideburns will not extend below the lowest part of the exterior ear opening, will be of even width (not flared), and will end with a clean-shaven horizontal line.
"2/75.3 MUSTACHES: A short and neatly trimmed mustache may be worn, but shall not extend over the top of the upper lip or beyond the corners of the mouth.
“2/75.4 BEARDS & GOATEES: The face will be clean-shaven other than the wearing of the acceptable mustache or sideburns. Beards and goatees are prohibited, except that a Police Surgeon may grant a waiver for the wearing of a beard for medical reasons with the approval of the Police Commissioner. When a Surgeon prescribes that a member not shave, the beard will be kept trimmed symmetrically and all beard hairs will be kept trimmed so that they do not protrude more than one-half inch from the skin surface of the face.
“2/75.5 WIGS: Wigs or hair pieces will not be worn on duty in uniform except for cosmetic reasons to cover natural baldness or physical disfiguration. If under these conditions, a wig or hair piece is worn, it will conform to department standards.” App. 57-58.
E. g., Stradley v. Andersen, 478 F. 2d 188 (CA8 1973); Greenwald v. Frank, 40 App. Div. 2d 717, 337 N. Y. S. 2d 225 (1972), aff’d without opinion, 32 N. Y. 2d 862, 299 N. E. 2d 895 (1973). The District Court’s dismissal was based on cases upholding the discretionary power of the military and National Guard to regulate a soldier’s hair length. See Gianatasio v. Whyte, 426 F. 2d 908 (CA2), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 941 (1970); Raderman v. Kaine, 411 F. 2d 1102 (CA2), cert. dismissed, 396 U. S. 976 (1969).
483 F. 2d, at 1130. While it recognized the distinction between citizens and uniformed employees of police and fire departments, the Court of Appeals stated that the individual’s status did not bear on the existence of his right but on whether the right was outweighed by a legitimate state interest. Id., at 1130 n. 9.
On remand, the complaint was appropriately amended to reflect the interim renumbering and modification of the hair-grooming regulation. The former sections 2/75.0-2/75.3, see n. 1, supra, were modified to provide as follows:
“Members of the Force will be neat and clean at all times while on duty. Male personnel will comply with the following grooming standards unless excluded by the Police Commissioner due to special assignments:
“A. Hair will be neat, clean, trimmed and present a groomed appearance. Hair will not go below the ears or the collar except the closely cut hair on the back of the neck. Pony tails are prohibited. In no case will the bulk or length of the hair interfere with the proper wear of any authorized headgear.
“B. If a member chooses to wear sideburns, they will be neatly trimmed. Sideburns will not extend below the lowest part of the ear. Sideburns shall not be flared beyond 2" in width and will end with a clean-shaven horizontal line. Sideburns shall not connect with the mustache.
“C. A neatly trimmed mustache may be worn.” Rules and Procedures, Police Department, County of Suffolk, N. Y., 2/2.16 (hereinafter Rules and Procedures).
Sections 2/75.4-2/75.5, see n. 1, supra, were simply renumbered as 2/2.16, subdivisions D and E, respectively. Deputy Commissioner Rapp’s testimony on remand was directed to the regulation as modified. For present purposes, the differences are immaterial.
Illustrating one safety problem, Rapp showed that an assailant could throw an officer off balance by grabbing his hair from the rear and levering against the patrolman’s back. After noting that the prohibition against “ponytails” was thus a proper one, the District Court stated:
“The remainder of 2/2.16A, however, bears no relationship to safety but rather related to hair styling. The potential danger in hairdress is the ability of the offender to grip the hair and hold the fate of the police officer in his hand. Bulk and length of the hair is not regulated except as it interferes with ‘the proper wear of any authorized headgear.’ Thus the regulation would permit bulky and lengthy hair on the top of the head, thereby presenting the very problem that was demonstrated. In the remaining subdivisions, sideburns, mustaches and wigs are regulated and beards are barred. No proof was offered to support any claim of the need for the protection of the police officer in the pertinent regulations.” Pet. for Cert. 7a.
The District Court’s findings with respect to the relationship between morale and grooming standards are as follows:
“The high morale of police personnel is a matter of grave concern to the department. Proper grooming is an ingredient of the esprit de corps of a good law enforcement organization. The self-esteem generated in the individual and the respect commanded from the public it serves promotes [sic] the efficiency of the organization’s work. However, with the exception of the general requirement that hair, sideburns and mustaches be neatly trimmed, the regulations do not provide standards for proper grooming. Rather, the standards do nothing more than demand uniformity. Uniformity for uniformity’s sake does not establish a public need. Defendant offered no proof that beards, goatees, hair styles that extend below the ears or collar, or sideburns that extend below the lowest part of the ear or beyond 2" in width and do not end with a cleanshaven horizontal line affect the morale of the members of the police department or earn the disrespect of the public.” Id., at 7a-8a.
While noting Rapp’s testimony that uniformity was required for identification, the District Court stated: “It would appear, however, that the uniform (issued by the department) supplies the necessary identification for police work.”
Rules and Procedures 4/1.0-4/1.3.
Id., 6/2.2.
Id., 2/2.5.
Id., 2/5.1.
See, e. g., id., 2/14.0 et seq. (Code of Ethics).
The Court of Appeals itself found that while there was no desire on the part of local governments like Suffolk County to create a “military force,” “[t]he use of such organization evolved as a 'practical administrative solution . . . 483 F. 2d, at 1128-1129 (emphasis added). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. 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. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations | What is the ideological direction of the decision reviewed by the Supreme Court? | [
"Conservative",
"Liberal",
"Unspecifiable"
] | [
1
] | sc |
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. DEENA ARTWARE, INC., et al.
No. 46.
Argued December 8, 1959.
Decided February 23, 1960.
Ralph S. Spritzer argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Stuart Rothman, Thomas J. McDermott and Dominick L. Manoli.
James G. Wheeler argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Mervin N. Bachman, Thomas J. Marshall, Jr. and Sidney R. Zatz.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This litigation has been long and drawn out and the present case is merely a small segment of it. In 1949 petitioner found that respondent Deena Artware, Inc. (Artware), had violated the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a), by discharging and refusing to reinstate 66 employees who had engaged in a strike (86 N. L. R. B. 732, 95 N. L. R. B. 9); and it ordered Artware “and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns” to offer reinstatement to those employees and to make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by them as a result of the discriminating action. The Court of Appeals in 1952 affirmed the Board’s decision with respect to 62 of the 66 employees and entered a decree enforcing the Board’s order, 198 F. 2d 645, remanding the case to the Board to determine the amounts due the individual employees. In 1953 Artware offered reinstatement to all of these employees but shortly closed its plant (which was located in Kentucky), never resumed operations, and never paid any back pay to the employees in question.
It appears that Weiner, one of the respondents, created a series of corporations, at the top of which was Deena Products, Inc. (Products), an Illinois corporation. Beneath it was a group of. subsidiaries — formed under Kentucky law — Artware, Deena of Arlington, Inc., Sippi Products Co., Inc., and Industrial Realty Co., Inc. — all of whose shares, except for qualifying shares, were owned by Products. Weiner owned all the shares of Products, except for qualifying shares; and all the officers and directors of Products and the several subsidiaries were .Weiner, his wife, his son, and his secretary. Weiner was president and treasurer of Products and of each of the subsidiaries, including Artware.
Artware in 1949 gave Products a promissory note secured by a mortgage on Artware’s property, allegedly for advances made. In 1952 Artware made an assignment to Products in partial satisfaction, of its indebtedness. In 1953 the Board applied to the Court of Appeals for an order restraining that assignment. It also asked for an order of discovery, alleging that the affairs of Products and Artware were being conducted in such a way as to dissipate Artware’s assets and to avoid making the back wage payments. The court denied these motions, holding that, until the amount of back pay was liquidated and payment of the fixed sum refused, there was no warrant for granting that relief (207 F. 2d 798), the court, adding that if upon liquidation of Artware “any financial inability” on its part to pay the awards was shown to be “the result of improper actions on its part in the meantime, appropriate contempt action can then- be taken.” Id., at 802.
At that time, the Board had not issued an order determining the specific amounts of back pay owed the individual employees. In 1955 — nearly two years later — it made that determination and entered an order, directing payment of back pay totaling about $300,000; and the Court of Appeals' ordered Artware, “its officers, agents, successors and assigns” to pay that amount to specified employees. 228 F. 2d 871. That' was on December 16, 1955.
In 1957 the Board moved the Court of Appeals for discovery, inspection, and depositions, naming Artware, Weiner, Products, and the other subsidiaries of Products. It alleged that Weiner had caused the assets of Artware to be siphoned off through the other corporations under his control for the purpose of evading the back pay obligation. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, 251 F. 2d 183, holding that a contempt proceeding, rather than discovery, was the proper procedure.
On August 20, 1958, the Board petitioned the Court of Appeals to hold Artware, Weiner, Products and the other subsidiaries in civil contempt for failure to pay the amounts due employees under the back pay order. On October 11, 1958, the Board renewed its motion for discovery, inspection, and the taking of depositions from Artware, the affiliated corporations, and Weiner and other officers of these corporations. ■
In its petition the Board made charges of dealings between these corporations and between them and Weiner occurring from 1949 to 1955 which, it maintained, showed both (1) fraud and wrongdoing for the purpose of frustrating the back pay order and (2) the operation of these various corporations “as 'a single enterprise,” each of the corporations performing “a particular function, as a department or division of the one enterprise in the manufacture, sale- and distribution of the common product.” The allegations (which are summarized in the opinion below, 261 F. 2d 503, 506-507) need not be repeated here, as the Court of Appeals merely held that, although the enforcement order was entered July 30, 1952, it was not made specific as to amounts owed until December 16, 1955. It, therefore, concluded that prior to the latter date the decree was “not sufficiently definite and mandatory to serve as the basis for contempt proceedings.” Id., at 510. It, therefore, dismissed the Board’s petition for adjudication in civil contempt. It also denied the Board’s motion for discovery, inspection, and depositions. 261 F. 2d 503, 510. The case is here on a petition for certiorari, 359 U. S. 983, which we granted in order to consider the validity of the action of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the petition insofar as it charged the existence of “a single enterprise.”
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition without considering the second group of allegations made by the Board, viz., that these various corporations were in fact “a single enterprise.” ■ And it denied the motion for discovery even as it pertained to that alternative theory of liability. It may have done so because it thought that the issues tendered in the petition related solely to inter-company transactions alleged to be conveyances in fraud of creditors or preferences in favor of some creditors. That seemed to be its preoccupation, as is evident by its references to possible causes of action under Kentucky law to set those transactions aside. Id., at 509.
We do not stop to consider what would be a proper formulation of a rule of law governing liability in contempt for frustration of a decree. The Court of Appeals may have considered the transactions and assignments as if they were made between separate and distinct corporations. If they are viewed in that light, we cannot say they are so colorable as to warrant us in reversing the Court of Appeals. But we think the Board is entitled to show that these separate corporations are not what they appear to be, that in truth they are but divisions or departments of a “single enterprise.”- That is the alternative theory of liability which the Court of Appeals did not consider. We think that the Board is entitled to a hearing un that alternative theory and to discovery in aid of it.
The question whether the corporations under Weiner’s ownership were only departments or divisions in one single enterprise is in a different category than those that arise under either 13 Eliz. or the modern law of preferences. Whether one corporation is liable for the obligations of an affiliate turns on other considerations. The insulation of a stockholder from the debts and obligations of his corporation is the norm, not the exception. See Pullman Car Co. v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 115 U. S. 587, 597. Yet as Mr. Justice Cardozo said in Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N. Y. 84, 95, 155 N. E. 58, 61, “Dominion may be so complete, interference so obtrusive, that by the general rules of agency the parent will be a principal and the subsidiary an agent. Where control is less than this, we are remitted to the tests of honesty and justice.” That is not a complete catalogue. The several companies may be represented as one. Apart from that is the question whether in fact the economic enterprise is one, the corporate forms being largely paper arrangements that do not reflect the business realities. One company may in fact be operated as-a division of another; one may be only a shell, inadequately financed; the affairs of the group may be so intermingled "that no distinct corporate lines are maintained. These are some, though by no means all, of the relevant considerations, as the authorities recognize. See Lattin on Corporations (1959) ch. 2, §§ 13, 14; Stevens on Corporations (1949) § 17; Berle, The Theory of Enterprise Entity, 47 Col. L. Rev. 343.
We do not intimate an opinion on the merits of this alternative theory of liability. The authorities we have cited merely indicate the range of inquiry which the petition of the Board presented. Discovery is useful in determining what the facts are. It is, indeed, necessary to determine whether the decree of the court enforcing the Board’s order should run to any of the affiliated corporations or their stockholders. When the facts are resolved, it will be time enough to consider what further enforcement decree, if any, would be appropriate.
The petition should be reinstated insofar as it charges the existence of “a single enterprise,” and the motion for discovery should be granted so that the Board will have an opportunity to prove those allegations.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See Platt v. Bradner Co., 131 Wash. 573, 230 P. 633. Cf. American Nat. Bank v. National Wall-Paper Co., 77 F. 85, 91.
See Foard Co. v. Maryland, 219 F. 827, 829; Portsmouth Cotton Oil Corp. v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 280 F. 879; Dillard & Coffin Co. v. Richmond Cotton Oil Co., 140 Tenn. 290, 296, 204 S. W. 758; Costan v. Manila Electric Co., 24 F. 2d 383, 384-385. Cf. United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 238 U. S. 516, 529; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis Civic Assn., 247 U. S. 490, 500-502; Erickson v. Minnesota & Ontario Power Co., 134 Minn. 209, 213-215,158 N. W. 979, 980-981.
See Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. W. R. Grace & Co., 267 F. 676, 681; Oriental Investment Co. v. Barclay, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 543, 554-557, 64 S. W. 80, 86-87. For discussion of the situation where a company is “deliberately kept judgment-proof” see Weisser v. Mursam Shoe Corp., 127 F. 2d 344, 346.
See The Willem van Driel, 252 F. 35, 38; Wichita Falls & N. W. R. Co. v. Puckett, 53 Okla. 463, 502-505, 157 P. 112, 124-125. Cf. United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 220 U. S. 257, 272-274.
Cf. Union Sulphur Co. v. Freeport Texas Co., 251 F. 634, 661-662; Harlan Public Service Co. v. Eastern Constr. Co., 254 Ky. 135, 143, 71 S. W. 2d 24, 29.
Cf. Regal Knitwear Co. v. Labor Board, 324 U. S. 9, 16. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York. | What is the court in which the case originated? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims",
"United States Supreme Court"
] | [
24
] | sc |
BENDIX AUTOLITE CORP. v. MIDWESCO ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.
No. 87-367.
Argued March 23, 1988
Decided June 17, 1988
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, White, MARSHALL, Blackmun, Stevens, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 895. Rehnquist, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 898.
Noel C. Crowley argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was James T. Murray.
Ira J. Bomstein argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief for Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., was Harvey J. Barnett.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Ohio recognizes a 4-year statute of limitations in actions for breach of contract or fraud. The statute is tolled, however, for any period that a person or corporation is not “present” in the State. To be present in Ohio, a foreign corporation must appoint an agent for service of process, which operates as consent to the general jurisdiction of the Ohio courts. Applying well-settled constitutional principles, we find the Ohio statute that suspends limitations protection for out-of-state entities is a violation of the Commerce Clause.
I — I
Underlying the constitutional question presented by the Ohio statute of limitations rules is a rather ordinary contract dispute. In 1974, Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., agreed with Bendix Autolite Corporation to deliver and install a boiler system at a Bendix facility in Fostoria, Ohio. Dissatisfied with the work, Bendix claimed that the boiler system had been installed improperly and that it was insufficient to produce the quantity of steam specified in the contract. This diversity action was filed against Midwesco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in 1980. Bendix is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio; Midwesco is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois.
When Midwesco asserted the Ohio statute of limitations as a'defense, Bendix responded that the statutory period had not elapsed because under Ohio law running of the time is suspended, or tolled, for claims against entities that are not within the State and have not designated an agent for service of process. Midwesco replied that this tolling provision violated both the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The District Court dismissed the action, finding that the Ohio tolling statute constituted an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the Ohio statute constituted discrimination in violation of the Commerce Clause because it required a foreign corporation to choose between “ ‘exposing itself to personal jurisdiction in [state] courts by complying with the tolling statute, or, by refusing to comply, to remain liable in perpetuity for all lawsuits containing state causes of action filed against it in [the State].”’ 820 F. 2d 186, 188 (1987) (quoting McKinley v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., 575 F. Supp. 942, 945 (Idaho 1983)). The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that an agent for service of process could have been appointed by Midwesco either in the contract or by giving notice to the Ohio Secretary of State. Bendix appealed, and we noted probable jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the Ohio tolling statute. 484 U. S. 923 (1987). We now affirm.
I — I hH
Where the burden of a state regulation falls on interstate commerce, restricting its flow in a manner not applicable to local business and trade, there may be either a discrimination that renders the regulation invalid without more, or cause to weigh and assess the State’s putative interests against the interstate restraints to determine if the burden imposed is an unreasonable one. See Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 476 U. S. 573, 578-579 (1986). The Ohio statute before us might have been held to be a discrimination that invalidates without extended inquiry. We choose, however, to assess the interests of the State, to demonstrate that its legitimate sphere of regulation is not much advanced by the statute while interstate commerce is subject to substantial restraints. We find that the burden imposed on interstate commerce by the tolling statute exceeds any local interest that the State might advance.
The burden the tolling statute places on interstate commerce is significant. Midwesco has no corporate office in Ohio, is not registered to do business there, and has not appointed an agent for service of process in the State. To gain the protection of the limitations period, Midwesco would have had to appoint a resident agent for service of process in Ohio and subject itself to the general jurisdiction of the Ohio courts. This jurisdiction would extend to any suit against Midwesco, whether or not the transaction in question had any connection with Ohio. The designation of an agent subjects the foreign corporation to the general jurisdiction of the Ohio courts in matters to which Ohio’s tenuous relation would not otherwise extend. Cf. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286 (1980). The Ohio statutory scheme thus forces a foreign corporation to choose between exposure to the general jurisdiction of Ohio courts or forfeiture of the limitations defense, remaining subject to suit in Ohio in perpetuity. Requiring a foreign corporation to appoint an agent for service in all cases and to defend itself with reference to all transactions, including those in which it did not have the minimum contacts necessary for supporting personal jurisdiction, is a significant burden. See Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U. S. 102, 114 (1987).
Although statute of limitations defenses are not a fundamental right, Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304, 314 (1945), it is obvious that they are an integral part of the legal system and are relied upon to project the liabilities of persons and corporations active in the commercial sphere. The State may not withdraw such defenses on conditions repugnant to the Commerce Clause. Where a State denies ordinary legal defenses or like privileges to out-of-state persons or corporations engaged in commerce, the state law will be reviewed under the Commerce Clause to determine whether the denial is discriminatory on its face or an impermissible burden on commerce. The State may not condition the exercise of the defense on the waiver or relinquishment of rights that the foreign corporation would otherwise retain. Cf. Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282 (1921); Allenberg Cotton Co. v. Pittman, 419 U. S. 20 (1974).
The ability to execute service of process on foreign corporations and entities is an important factor to consider in assessing the local interest in subjecting out-of-state entities to requirements more onerous than those imposed on domestic parties. It is true that serving foreign corporate defendants may be more arduous than serving domestic corporations or foreign corporations with a designated agent for service, and we have held for equal protection purposes that a State rationally may make adjustments for this difference by curtailing limitations protection for absent foreign corporations. G. D. Searle & Co. v. Cohn, 455 U. S. 404 (1982). Nevertheless, state interests that are legitimate for equal protection or due process purposes may be insufficient to withstand Commerce Clause scrutiny.
In the particular case before us, the Ohio tolling statute must fall under the Commerce Clause. Ohio cannot justify its statute as a means of protecting its residents from corporations who become liable for acts done within the State but later withdraw from the jurisdiction, for it is conceded by all parties that the Ohio long-arm statute would have permitted service on Midwesco throughout the period of limitations. The Ohio statute of limitations is tolled only for those foreign corporations that do not subject themselves to the general jurisdiction of Ohio courts. In this manner the Ohio statute imposes a greater burden on out-of-state companies than it does on Ohio companies, subjecting the activities of foreign and domestic corporations to inconsistent regulations. CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U. S. 69, 87-89 (1987).
The suggestion that Midwesco had the simple alternatives of designating an agent for service of process in its contract with Bendix or tendering an agency appointment to the Ohio Secretary of State is not persuasive. Initially, there is no statutory support for either option, and it is speculative that either device would have satisfied the Ohio requirements for the continued running of the limitations period. In any event, a designation with the Ohio Secretary of State of an agent for the service of process likely would have subjected Midwesco to the general jurisdiction of Ohio courts over transactions in which Ohio had no interest. As we have already concluded, this exaction is an unreasonable burden on commerce.
Finally, Bendix argues that if we find the Ohio statute is unconstitutional, our ruling should be applied prospectively only, and not to the parties in this case. See Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97, 106 (1971); Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50, 88 (1982). The Sixth Circuit refiised to consider the argument because it was raised for the first time in Bendix’s reply brief. 820 F. 2d, at 189. As the argument was not presented to the courts below, it will not be considered here. Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee, 459 U. S. 87, 104-105 (1982) (Blackmun, J., concurring in part).
Affirmed.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2305.09 (1981) provides in pertinent part:
“An action for any of the following causes shall be brought within four years after the cause thereof accrued:
“(C) For relief on the ground of fraud.”
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302.98 (1979) proyides in pertinent part:
“(A) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. By the original agreement the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year but may not extend it.
“(B) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach.”
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2305.15 (Supp. 1987) provides:
“When a cause of action accrues against a person, if he is out of the state, has absconded, or conceals himself, the period of limitation for the commencement of the action as provided in sections 2305.04 to 2305.14, 1302.98, and 1304.29 of the Revised Code, does not begin to run until he comes into the state or while he is so absconded or concealed. After the cause of action accrues if he departs from the state, absconds, or conceals himself, the time of his absence or concealment shall not be computed as any part of a period within which the action must be brought.”
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2307.38.2 (1981) provides in pertinent part:
“(A) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent, as to cause an action arising from the person’s:
“(1) Transacting any business in this state;
“(2) Contracting to supply services or goods in this state;
“(3) Causing tortious injury by act or omission in this state;
“(B) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a cause of action arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him.”
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1703.04.1 (1985), provides in pertinent part:
“(A) Every foreign corporation for profit that is licensed to transact business in this state, and every foreign nonprofit corporation that is licensed to exercise its corporate privileges in this state, shall have and maintain an agent, sometimes referred to as the ‘designated agent,’ upon whom process against such corporation may be served within this state. . . .
“(H) Process may be served upon a foreign corporation by delivering a copy of it to its designated agent, if a natural person, or by delivering a copy of it at the address of its agent in this state, as such address appears upon the record in the office of the secretary of state.
“(I) This section does not limit or affect the right to serve process upon a foreign corporation in any other manner permitted by law.”
In part to comply with Commerce Clause concerns, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1703.02 (1985), exempts corporations engaged solely in interstate commerce from the registration requirement:
“Sections 1703.01 to 1703.31, inclusive, of the Revised Code do not apply to corporations engaged in this state solely in interstate commerce, including the installation, demonstration, or repair of machinery or equipment sold by them in interstate commerce . . . .”
Section 1703.02 does not, however, remove foreign corporations from the reach of the tolling provision.
In Searle, we declined to reach the issue whether the New Jersey tolling statute impermissibly burdened interstate commerce, finding that the issue was “clouded by an ambiguity in state law,” and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. 455 U. S., at 413-414. The Court of Appeals then remanded to the District Court “for further consideration of the Commerce Clause issue.” Hopkins v. Kelsey-Hayes, Inc., 677 F. 2d 301, 302 (CA3 1982). Before the District Court ruled, however, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared its tolling statute unconstitutional under a Commerce Clause analysis as a forced licensure provision, a decision we declined to review. Coons v. American Honda Motor Co., 94 N. J. 307, 463 A. 2d 921 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1123 (1985). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. | What is the issue area of the decision? | [
"Criminal Procedure",
"Civil Rights",
"First Amendment",
"Due Process",
"Privacy",
"Attorneys",
"Unions",
"Economic Activity",
"Judicial Power",
"Federalism",
"Interstate Relations",
"Federal Taxation",
"Miscellaneous",
"Private Action"
] | [
3
] | sc |
Jorge Luna TORRES, Petitioner
v.
Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.
No. 14-1096.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Nov. 3, 2015.
Decided May 19, 2016.
Matthew L. Guadagno, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Elaine J. Goldenberg, for Respondent.
Stuart Banner, Los Angeles, CA, Matthew L. Guadagno, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant, Attorney General, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor, General, Donald E. Keener, Patrick J. Glen, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act) imposes certain adverse immigration consequences on an alien convicted of an "aggravated felony." The INA defines that term by listing various crimes, most of which are identified as offenses "described in" specified provisions of the federal criminal code. Immediately following that list, the Act provides that the referenced offenses are aggravated felonies irrespective of whether they are "in violation of Federal[,] State[,]" or foreign law. 108 Stat. 4322, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). In this case, we must decide if a state crime counts as an aggravated felony when it corresponds to a specified federal offense in all ways but one-namely, the state crime lacks the interstate commerce element used in the federal statute to establish legislative jurisdiction (i.e., Congress's power to enact the law). We hold that the absence of such a jurisdictional element is immaterial: A state crime of that kind is an aggravated felony.
I
The INA makes any alien convicted of an "aggravated felony" after entering the United States deportable. See § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Such an alien is also ineligible for several forms of discretionary relief, including cancellation of removal-an order allowing a deportable alien to remain in the country. See § 1229b(a)(3). And because of his felony, the alien faces expedited removal proceedings. See § 1228(a)(3)(A).
The Act defines the term "aggravated felony" by way of a long list of offenses, now codified at § 1101(a)(43). In all, that provision's 21 subparagraphs enumerate some 80 different crimes. In more than half of those subparagraphs, Congress specified the crimes by citing particular federal statutes. According to that common formulation, an offense is an aggravated felony if it is "described in," say, 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (relating to child pornography), § 922(g) (relating to unlawful gun possession), or, of particular relevance here, § 844(i) (relating to arson and explosives). 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(E), (I). Most of the remaining subparagraphs refer to crimes by their generic labels, stating that an offense is an aggravated felony if, for example, it is "murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor." § 1101(a)(43)(A). Following the entire list of crimes, § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence reads: "The term [aggravated felony] applies to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law and applies to such an offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years." So, putting aside the 15-year curlicue, the penultimate sentence provides that an offense listed in § 1101(a)(43) is an aggravated felony whether in violation of federal, state, or foreign law.
Petitioner Jorge Luna Torres, who goes by the name George Luna, immigrated to the United States as a child and has lived here ever since as a lawful permanent resident. In 1999, he pleaded guilty to attempted arson in the third degree, in violation of New York law; he was sentenced to one day in prison and five years of probation. Seven years later, immigration officials discovered his conviction and initiated proceedings to remove him from the country. During those proceedings, Luna applied for cancellation of removal. But the Immigration Judge found him ineligible for that discretionary relief because his arson conviction qualified as an aggravated felony. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a-22a.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirmed, based on a comparison of the federal and New York arson statutes. See id., at 15a-17a. The INA, as just noted, provides that "an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), the federal arson and explosives statute, is an aggravated felony. Section 844(i), in turn, makes it a crime to "maliciously damage[ ] or destroy[ ], or attempt[ ] to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building [or] vehicle ... used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce." For its part, the New York law that Luna was convicted under prohibits "intentionally damag[ing]," or attempting to damage, "a building or motor vehicle by starting a fire or causing an explosion." N.Y. Penal Law Ann. §§ 110, 150.10 (West 2010). The state law, the Board explained, thus matches the federal statute element-for-element with one exception: The New York law does not require a connection to interstate commerce. According to the Board, that single difference did not matter because the federal statute's commerce element is "jurisdictional"-that is, its function is to establish Congress's power to legislate. See App. to Pet for Cert. 16a-17a. Given that the two laws' substantive (i.e., non-jurisdictional) elements map onto each other, the Board held, the New York arson offense is "described in" 18 U.S.C. § 844(i).
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Luna's petition for review of the Board's ruling. See 764 F.3d 152 (2014). The court's decision added to a Circuit split over whether a state offense is an aggravated felony when it has all the elements of a listed federal crime except one requiring a connection to interstate commerce. We granted certiorari. 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2918, 192 L.Ed.2d 923 (2015).
II
The issue in this case arises because of the distinctive role interstate commerce elements play in federal criminal law. In our federal system, "Congress cannot punish felonies generally," Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 428, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) ; it may enact only those criminal laws that are connected to one of its constitutionally enumerated powers, such as the authority to regulate interstate commerce. As a result, most federal offenses include, in addition to substantive elements, a jurisdictional one, like the interstate commerce requirement of § 844(i). The substantive elements "primarily define[ ] the behavior that the statute calls a 'violation' of federal law," Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 547 U.S. 9, 18, 126 S.Ct. 1264, 164 L.Ed.2d 10 (2006) -or, as the Model Penal Code puts the point, they relate to "the harm or evil" the law seeks to prevent, § 1.13(10). The jurisdictional element, by contrast, ties the substantive offense (here, arson) to one of Congress's constitutional powers (here, its authority over interstate commerce), thus spelling out the warrant for Congress to legislate. See id., at 17-18, 126 S.Ct. 1264 (explaining that Congress intends "such statutory terms as 'affect commerce' or 'in commerce' ... as terms of art connecting the congressional exercise of legislative authority with the constitutional provision (here, the Commerce Clause) that grants Congress that authority").
For obvious reasons, state criminal laws do not include the jurisdictional elements common in federal statutes. State legislatures, exercising their plenary police powers, are not limited to Congress's enumerated powers; and so States have no reason to tie their substantive offenses to those grants of authority. See, e.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 567, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). In particular, state crimes do not contain interstate commerce elements because a State does not need such a jurisdictional hook. Accordingly, even state offenses whose substantive elements match up exactly with a federal law's will part ways with respect to interstate commerce. That slight discrepancy creates the issue here: If a state offense lacks an interstate commerce element but otherwise mirrors one of the federal statutes listed in § 1101(a)(43), does the state crime count as an aggravated felony? Or, alternatively, does the jurisdictional difference reflected in the state and federal laws preclude that result, no matter the laws' substantive correspondence?
Both parties begin with the statutory text most directly at issue, disputing when a state offense (here, arson) is "described in" an enumerated federal statute (here, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) ). Luna, armed principally with Black's Law Dictionary, argues that "described in" means "expressed" or "set forth" in-which, he says, requires the state offense to include each one of the federal law's elements. Brief for Petitioner 15-16. The Government, brandishing dictionaries of its own, contends that the statutory phrase has a looser meaning-that "describing entails ... not precise replication," but "convey[ance of] an idea or impression" or of a thing's "central features." Brief for Respondent 17. On that view, "described in," as opposed to the more precise "defined in" sometimes found in statutes, denotes that the state offense need only incorporate the federal law's core, substantive elements.
But neither of those claims about the bare term "described in" can resolve this case. Like many words, "describe" takes on different meanings in different contexts. Consider two ways in which this Court has used the word. In one case, "describe" conveyed exactness: A contractual provision, we wrote, "describes the subject [matter] with great particularity[,] ... giv[ing] the precise number of pounds [of tobacco], the tax for which each pound was liable, and the aggregate of the tax." Ryan v. United States, 19 Wall. 514, 517, 22 L.Ed. 172 (1874). In another case, not: "The disclosure provision is meant," we stated, "to describe the law to consumers in a manner that is concise and comprehensible to the layman-which necessarily means that it will be imprecise." CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95, 102, 132 S.Ct. 665, 181 L.Ed.2d 586 (2012). So staring at, or even looking up, the words "described in" cannot answer whether a state offense must replicate every last element of a listed federal statute, including its jurisdictional one, to qualify as an aggravated felony. In considering that issue, we must, as usual, "interpret the relevant words not in a vacuum, but with reference to the statutory context." Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2259, 2267, 189 L.Ed.2d 262 (2014).
Here, two contextual considerations decide the matter. The first is § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence, which shows that Congress meant the term "aggravated felony" to capture serious crimes regardless of whether they are prohibited by federal, state, or foreign law. The second is a well-established background principle distinguishing between substantive and jurisdictional elements in federal criminal statutes. We address each factor in turn.
A
Section 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence, as noted above, provides: "The term [aggravated felony] applies to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law and applies to such an offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years." See supra, at 1623. That sentence (except for the time limit on foreign convictions) declares the source of criminal law irrelevant: The listed offenses count as aggravated felonies regardless of whether they are made illegal by the Federal Government, a State, or a foreign country. That is true of the crimes identified by reference to federal statutes (as here, an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) ), as well as those employing generic labels (for example, murder). As even Luna recognizes, state and foreign analogues of the enumerated federal crimes qualify as aggravated felonies. See Brief for Petitioner 21 (contesting only what properly counts as such an analogue).
The whole point of § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence is to make clear that a listed offense should lead to swift removal, no matter whether it violates federal, state, or foreign law.
Luna's jot-for-jot view of "described in" would substantially undercut that function by excluding from the Act's coverage all state and foreign versions of any enumerated federal offense that (like § 844(i) ) contains an interstate commerce element. Such an element appears in about half of § 1101(a)(43)'s listed statutes-defining, altogether, 27 serious crimes. Yet under Luna's reading, only those federal crimes, and not their state and foreign counterparts, would provide a basis for an alien's removal-because, as explained earlier, only Congress must ever show a link to interstate commerce. See supra, at 1624 - 1625. No state or foreign legislature needs to incorporate a commerce element to establish its jurisdiction, and so none ever does. Accordingly, state and foreign crimes will never precisely replicate a federal statute containing a commerce element. And that means, contrary to § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence, that the term "aggravated felony" would not apply to many of the Act's listed offenses irrespective of whether they are "in violation of Federal[,] State[, or foreign] law"; instead, that term would apply exclusively to the federal variants.
Indeed, Luna's view would limit the penultimate sentence's effect in a peculiarly perverse fashion-excluding state and foreign convictions for many of the gravest crimes listed in § 1101(a)(43), while reaching those convictions for less harmful offenses. Consider some of the state and foreign crimes that would not count as aggravated felonies on Luna's reading because the corresponding federal law has a commerce element: most child pornography offenses, including selling a child for the purpose of manufacturing such material, see § 1101(a)(43)(I) ; demanding or receiving a ransom for kidnapping, see § 1101(a)(43)(H) ; and possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, see § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii). Conversely, the term "aggravated felony" in Luna's world would include state and foreign convictions for such comparatively minor offenses as operating an unlawful gambling business, see § 1101(a)(43)(J), and possessing a firearm not identified by a serial number, see § 1101(a)(43)(E)(iii), because Congress chose, for whatever reason, not to use a commerce element when barring that conduct. And similarly, the term would cover any state or foreign conviction for such nonviolent activity as receiving stolen property, see § 1101(a)(43)(G), or forging documents, see § 1101(a)(43)(R), because the INA happens to use generic labels to describe those crimes. This Court has previously refused to construe § 1101(a)(43) so as to produce such "haphazard"-indeed, upside-down-coverage. Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 40, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009). We see no reason to follow a different path here: Congress would not have placed an alien convicted by a State of running an illegal casino at greater risk of removal than one found guilty under the same State's law of selling a child.
In an attempt to make some sense of his reading, Luna posits that Congress might have believed that crimes having an interstate connection are generally more serious than those lacking one-for example, that interstate child pornography is "worse" than the intrastate variety. Brief for Petitioner 35. But to begin with, that theory cannot explain the set of crazy-quilt results just described: Not even Luna maintains that Congress thought local acts of selling a child, receiving explosives, or demanding a ransom are categorically less serious than, say, operating an unlawful casino or receiving stolen property (whether or not in interstate commerce). And it is scarcely more plausible to view an interstate commerce element in any given offense as separating serious from non-serious conduct: Why, for example, would Congress see an alien who carried out a kidnapping for ransom wholly within a State as materially less dangerous than one who crossed state lines in committing that crime? The essential harm of the crime is the same irrespective of state borders. Luna's argument thus misconceives the function of interstate commerce elements: Rather than distinguishing greater from lesser evils, they serve (as earlier explained) to connect a given substantive offense to one of Congress's enumerated powers. See supra, at 1624 - 1625. And still more fundamentally, Luna's account runs counter to the penultimate sentence's central message: that the national, local, or foreign character of a crime has no bearing on whether it is grave enough to warrant an alien's automatic removal.
Luna (and the dissent, see post, at 1637) must therefore fall back on a different defense: that his approach would exclude from the universe of aggravated felonies fewer serious state and foreign offenses than one might think. To make that argument, Luna relies primarily on a part of the Act specifying that the term "aggravated felony" shall include "a crime of violence (as defined in [18 U.S.C. § 16 ] ) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year." § 1101(a)(43)(F) ; see 18 U.S.C. § 16 (defining "crime of violence" as involving the use of "physical force" against the person or property of another). According to Luna, many state and foreign offenses failing to match the Act's listed federal statutes (for want of an interstate commerce element) would count as crimes of violence and, by that alternative route, trigger automatic removal. A different statutory phrase, or so Luna says, would thus plug the holes opened by his construction of the "described in" provisions.
Luna's argument does not reassure us. We agree that state counterparts of some enumerated federal offenses would qualify as aggravated felonies through the "crime of violence" provision. But not nearly all such offenses, and not even the worst ones. Consider again some of the listed offenses described earlier. See supra, at 1628. The "crime of violence" provision would not pick up demanding a ransom for kidnapping. See 18 U.S.C. § 875(a) (defining the crime without any reference to physical force). It would not cover most of the listed child pornography offenses, involving the distribution, receipt, and possession of such materials. It would not reach felon-in-possession laws and other firearms offenses. And indeed, it would not reach arson in the many States defining that crime to include the destruction of one's own property. See Jordison v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1134, 1135 (C.A.9 2007) (holding that a violation of California's arson statute does not count as a crime of violence for that reason); Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29 (Solicitor General agreeing with that interpretation). So under Luna's reading, state and foreign counterparts to a broad swath of listed statutes would remain outside § 1101(a)(43)'s coverage merely because they lack an explicit interstate commerce connection. And for all the reasons discussed above, that result would significantly restrict the penultimate sentence's force and effect, and in an utterly random manner.
B
Just as important, a settled practice of distinguishing between substantive and jurisdictional elements of federal criminal laws supports reading § 1101(a)(43) to include state analogues lacking an interstate commerce requirement. As already explained, the substantive elements of a federal statute describe the evil Congress seeks to prevent; the jurisdictional element connects the law to one of Congress's enumerated powers, thus establishing legislative authority. See supra, at 1624 - 1625; ALI, Model Penal Code § 1.13(10) (1962). Both kinds of elements must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and because that is so, both may play a real role in a criminal case. But still, they are not created equal for every purpose. To the contrary, courts have often recognized-including when comparing federal and state offenses-that Congress uses substantive and jurisdictional elements for different reasons and does not expect them to receive identical treatment.
Consider the law respecting mens rea . In general, courts interpret criminal statutes to require that a defendant possess a mens rea, or guilty mind, as to every element of an offense. See Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 2001, 2009-2010, 192 L.Ed.2d 1 (2015). That is so even when the "statute by its terms does not contain" any demand of that kind. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 70, 115 S.Ct. 464, 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994). In such cases, courts read the statute against a "background rule" that the defendant must know each fact making his conduct illegal. Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 619, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994). Or otherwise said, they infer, absent an express indication to the contrary, that Congress intended such a mental-state requirement.
Except when it comes to jurisdictional elements. There, this Court has stated, "the existence of the fact that confers federal jurisdiction need not be one in the mind of the actor at the time he perpetrates the act made criminal by the federal statute." United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 677, n. 9, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975) ; see United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 68, 104 S.Ct. 2936, 82 L.Ed.2d 53 (1984) ("Jurisdictional language need not contain the same culpability requirement as other elements of the offense"); Model Penal Code § 2.02. So when Congress has said nothing about the mental state pertaining to a jurisdictional element, the default rule flips: Courts assume that Congress wanted such an element to stand outside the otherwise applicable mens rea requirement. In line with that practice, courts have routinely held that a criminal defendant need not know of a federal crime's interstate commerce connection to be found guilty. See, e.g., United States v. Jinian, 725 F.3d 954, 964-966 (C.A.9 2013) ; United States v. Lindemann, 85 F.3d 1232, 1241 (C.A.7 1996) ; United States v. Blackmon, 839 F.2d 900, 907 (C.A.2 1988). Those courts have recognized, as we do here, that Congress viewed the commerce element as distinct from, and subject to a different rule than, the elements describing the substantive offense.
Still more strikingly, courts have distinguished between the two kinds of elements in contexts, similar to this one, in which the judicial task is to compare federal and state offenses. The Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. § 13(a), subjects federal enclaves, like military bases, to state criminal laws except when they punish the same conduct as a federal statute. The ACA thus requires courts to decide when a federal and a state law are sufficiently alike that only the federal one will apply. And we have held that, in making that assessment, courts should ignore jurisdictional elements: When the "differences among elements" of the state and federal crimes "reflect jurisdictional, or other technical, considerations" alone, then the state law will have no effect in the area. Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155, 165, 118 S.Ct. 1135, 140 L.Ed.2d 271 (1998) ; see also id., at 182, 118 S.Ct. 1135 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting) (agreeing that courts should "look beyond ... jurisdictional elements," and focus only on substantive ones, in determining whether "the elements of the two crimes are the same"). In such a case, we reasoned-just as we do now-that Congress meant for the federal jurisdictional element to be set aside.
And lower courts have uniformly adopted the same approach when comparing federal and state crimes in order to apply the federal three-strikes statute. That law imposes mandatory life imprisonment on a person convicted on three separate occasions of a "serious violent felony." 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(1). Sounding very much like the INA, the three-strikes statute defines such a felony to include "a Federal or State offense, by whatever designation and wherever committed, consisting of" specified crimes (e.g., murder, manslaughter, robbery) "as described in" listed federal criminal statutes. § 3559(c)(2)(F). In deciding whether a state crime of conviction thus corresponds to an enumerated federal statute, every court to have faced the issue has ignored the statute's jurisdictional element. See, e.g., United States v. Rosario-Delgado, 198 F.3d 1354, 1357 (C.A.11 1999) (per curiam ); United States v. Wicks, 132 F.3d 383, 386-387 (C.A.7 1997). Judge Wood, writing for the Seventh Circuit, highlighted the phrase "a Federal or State offense, by whatever designation and wherever committed"-the three-strikes law's version of § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence. "It is hard to see why Congress would have used this language," she reasoned, "if it had meant that every detail of the federal offense, including its jurisdictional element [ ], had to be replicated in the state offense." Id., at 386-387. Just so, too, in the INA-whose "aggravated felony" provisions operate against, and rely on, an established legal backdrop distinguishing between jurisdictional and substantive elements.
Luna objects to drawing that line on the ground that it is too hard to tell the difference between the two. See Brief for Petitioner 26-28 (discussing, in particular, statutes criminalizing the destruction of federal property and sending threats via the Postal Service). But that contention collides with the judicial experience just described. Courts regularly separate substantive from jurisdictional elements in applying federal criminal statutes' mens rea requirements; so too in implementing other laws that require a comparison of federal and state offenses. And from all we can see, courts perform that task with no real trouble: Luna has not pointed to any divisions between or within Circuits arising from the practice. We do not deny that some tough questions may lurk on the margins-where an element that makes evident Congress's regulatory power also might play a role in defining the behavior Congress thought harmful. But a standard interstate commerce element, of the kind appearing in a great many federal laws, is almost always a simple jurisdictional hook-and courts may as easily acknowledge that fact in enforcing the INA as they have done in other contexts.
C
Luna makes a final argument opposing our reading of § 1101(a)(43) : If Congress had meant for "ordinary state-law" crimes like arson to count as aggravated felonies, it would have drafted the provision to make that self-evident. Brief for Petitioner 20. Congress, Luna submits, would have used the generic term for those crimes-e.g., "arson"-rather than demanding that the state law of conviction correspond to a listed federal statute. See id., at 20-23. Or else, Luna (and the dissent) suggests, see id., at 24; post, at 1640 - 1641, Congress would have expressly distinguished between substantive and jurisdictional elements, as it did in an unrelated law mandating the pretrial detention of any person convicted of a federal offense "described in [a certain federal statute], or of a State or local offense that would have been an offense described in [that statute] if a circumstance giving rise to Federal jurisdiction had existed," 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(2)(A).
But as an initial matter, Congress may have had good reason to think that a statutory reference would capture more accurately than a generic label the range of state convictions warranting automatic deportation. The clause of § 1101(a)(43) applying to Luna's case well illustrates the point. By referring to 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), that provision incorporates not only the garden-variety arson offenses that a generic "arson" label would cover, but various explosives offenses too. See Brief for Petitioner 23, n. 7 (conceding that had Congress used the term "arson," it would have had to separately identify the explosives crimes encompassed in § 844(i) ). And the elements of generic arson are themselves so uncertain as to pose problems for a court having to decide whether they are present in a given state law. See Poulos, The Metamorphosis of the Law of Arson, 51 Mo. L.Rev. 295, 364, 387-435 (1986) (describing multiple conflicts over what conduct the term "arson" includes). Nor is the clause at issue here unusual in those respects: Section 1101(a)(43) includes many other statutory references that do not convert easily to generic labels. See, e.g., § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii) (listing federal statutes defining various firearms offenses). To be sure, Congress used such labels to describe some crimes qualifying as aggravated felonies-for example, "murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor." § 1101(a)(43)(A). But what is good for some crimes is not for others. The use of a federal statutory reference shows only that Congress thought it the best way to identify certain substantive crimes-not that Congress wanted (in conflict with the penultimate sentence) to exclude state and foreign versions of those offenses for lack of a jurisdictional element.
Still more, Congress's omission of statutory language specifically directing courts to ignore those elements cannot tip the scales in Luna's favor. We have little doubt that "Congress could have drafted [§ 1101(a)(43) ] with more precision than it did." Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409, 422, 125 S.Ct. 2444, 162 L.Ed.2d 390 (2005). But the same could be said of many (even most) statutes; as to that feature, § 1101(a)(43) can join a well-populated club. And we have long been mindful of that fact when interpreting laws. Rather than expecting (let alone demanding) perfection in drafting, we have routinely construed statutes to have a particular meaning even as we acknowledged that Congress could have expressed itself more clearly. See, e.g., ibid. ;
Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33, 41, 128 S.Ct. 2326, 171 L.Ed.2d 203 (2008) ; Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 570-571, 575, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). The question, then, is not: Could Congress have indicated (or even did Congress elsewhere indicate) in more crystalline fashion that comparisons of federal and state offenses should disregard elements that merely establish legislative jurisdiction? The question is instead, and more simply: Is that the right and fair reading of the statute before us? And the answer to that question, given the import of § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence and the well-settled background rule distinguishing between jurisdictional and substantive elements, is yes.
III
That reading of § 1101(a)(43) resolves this case. Luna has acknowledged that the New York arson law differs from the listed federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), in only one respect: It lacks an interstate commerce element. See Pet. for Cert. 3. And Luna nowhere contests that § 844(i)'s commerce element-featuring the terms "in interstate or foreign commerce" and "affecting interstate or foreign commerce"-is of the standard, jurisdictional kind. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 12, 19; Scheidler, 547 U.S., at 17-18, 126 S.Ct. 1264 (referring to the phrases "affect commerce" and "in commerce" as conventional "jurisdictional language"). For all the reasons we have given, such an element is properly ignored when determining if a state offense counts as an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Second Circuit.
It is so ordered.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice THOMAS and Justice BREYER join, dissenting.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) metes out severe immigration consequences to a noncitizen convicted of any of a number of "aggravated felon [ies]." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). An offense "described in" 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) -a federal arson statute-qualifies as such a crime.
In this case, petitioner, who goes by George Luna, was convicted of third-degree arson under N.Y. Penal Law Ann. § 150.10 (West 2010), which punishes anyone who (1) "intentionally" (2) "damages," by (3) "starting a fire or causing an explosion," (4) "a building or motor vehicle." By contrast, the federal arson statute, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), applies when someone (1) "maliciously" (2) "damages or destroys," (3) "by means of fire or an explosive," (4) "any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property" (5) "used in interstate or foreign commerce." There is one more element in the federal offense than in the state offense-(5), the interstate or foreign commerce element. Luna thus was not convicted of an offense "described in" the federal statute. Case closed.
Not for the majority. It dubs the fifth element "jurisdictional," then relies on contextual clues to read it out of the statute altogether. As a result of the majority's sleuthing, Luna-a long-time legal permanent resident-is foreclosed from even appealing to the sound discretion of the Attorney General to obtain relief from removal. Because precedent and the text and structure of the INA require the opposite result, I respectfully dissent.
I
A
Noncitizens convicted of crimes face various consequences under the INA. Among the harshest of those consequences fall on noncitizens convicted of 1 of the approximately 80 "aggravated felonies." A crime that falls into one of the listed provisions can be an aggravated felony "whether in violation of Federal or State law" or "in violation of the law of a foreign country." See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43).
An aggravated felony conviction has two primary repercussions for noncitizens: It renders them deportable, § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and it makes them categorically ineligible for several forms of immigration relief ordinarily left to the discretion of the Attorney General. See, e.g., §§ 1229b(a) -(b) (cancellation of removal).
The dozens of aggravated felonies in the INA are specified in two main ways. First, some are specified by reference to a generic crime. It is an aggravated felony, for instance, to commit "murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor." § 1101(a)(43)(A). Some of those crimes use a federal definition as one of the elements. For example: "Illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in [21 U.S.C. § 802 ] )." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) (emphasis added). ("Illicit trafficking" is a generic crime; the element of "controlled substance" takes the meaning in 21 U.S.C. § 802, the "Definitions" provision of the Controlled Substances Act.)
Second, it lists crimes that are wholly "described in" the federal criminal code. See, e.g., § 1101(a)(43)(H) ("an offense described in section 875, 876, 877, or 1202 of title 18 (relating to the demand for or receipt of ransom)"); § 1101(a)(43)(I) ("an offense described in section 2251, 2251A, or 2252 of title 18 (relating to child pornography)"). The Government contends that Luna committed a crime in this second category: an "offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), which criminalizes arson. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i).
B
In 2006, Luna was found removable from the United States. He attempted to apply for cancellation of removal, a form of relief available to long-time legal permanent residents at the discretion of the Attorney General. § 1229b(a). Nothing in Luna's history would otherwise preclude cancellation. He was the sole source of financial support for his U.S. citizen fiancee, enrolled in college and studying engineering, a homeowner, and a law-abiding legal permanent resident since he was brought to the United States as a child over 30 years ago, aside from the one third-degree arson conviction at issue in this case, for which he served a day in jail.
But the Immigration Judge found-and the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Second Circuit confirmed-that Luna was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Luna's New York State arson conviction, the judge held, qualified as an aggravated felony under the provision for "an offense described in" § 844(i), a federal arson statute. See § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i). Aggravated felons are ineligible for cancellation of removal. See § 1229b(a)(3). Luna's cancellation-of-removal application was thus summarily denied.
II
But the offense of which Luna was convicted is not " described in" § 844(i). This Court's ordinary method of interpreting the aggravated felony statute, the plain text of that provision, and the structure of the INA all confirm as much.
A
This is not the first time the Court has been tasked with determining whether a state offense constitutes an "aggravated felony" under the INA. Until today, the Court has always required the state offense to match every element of the listed "aggravated felony."
Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 1166, 1171, 182 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012) ; see also Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 1683-1685, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013) ; Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563, 580, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010) ; Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 33, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009) ; Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 185, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) ; Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 52-53, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006) ; Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 8, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004).
Our ordinary methodology thus confirms that the federal arson statute does not describe the New York arson statute under which Luna was convicted. As I have outlined above, see supra, at 1634, the federal statute is more limited: It applies only to fires that involve "interstate or foreign commerce." The state statute contains no such limitation. Thus, under the approach we have used in every case to date, the omission of the interstate commerce element means that Luna's state arson conviction was not an aggravated felony under the INA.
B
The plain language of the statute supports this straightforward approach. The word "describe" means to "express," "portray," or "represent." See Black's Law Dictionary 445 (6th ed. 1990); Webster's Third New International Dictionary 610 (1986). A description may be "detailed" or it may be general, setting forth only the "recognizable features, or characteristic marks," of the thing described while leaving the rest to the imagination. 4 Oxford English Dictionary 512 (2d ed. 1989). For example, a Craigslist ad describing an apartment with "in-unit laundry, a dishwasher, rooftop access, central A/C, and a walk-in closet" may leave much to the imagination. After all, the description does not mention the apartment's square footage, windows, or floor number. But though the ad omits features, we would still call it a "description" because it accurately conveys the "recognizable features" of the apartment.
However, even the most general description cannot refer to features that the thing being described does not have. The ad is only an accurate description if the apartment "described in" it has at least the five features listed. If the apartment only has four of the five listed features-there is no rooftop access, say, or the walk-in closet is not so much walk-in as shimmy-in-then the Craigslist ad no longer "describes" the apartment. Rather, it mis describes it.
So, too, with the statutes in this case. The federal description can be general as long as it is still accurate-that is, as long as the state law has at least all of the elements in the federal law. But there is no meaning of "describe" that allows the Court to say § 844(i)"describes" the New York offense when the New York offense only has four of the five elements listed in § 844(i). Section 844(i) misdescribes the New York offense just as surely as the too-good-to-be-true Craigslist ad misdescribes the real-life apartment.
C
The structure of the INA confirms that conclusion and makes clear that we need not contort the ordinary, accepted meaning of the phrase "described in." The INA has many overlapping provisions that assign carefully calibrated consequences to various types of criminal convictions. The Court thus need not interpret any provision-and certainly none of the aggravated felony provisions, among the harshest in the INA-as broadly as possible because the INA as a whole ensures that serious criminal conduct is adequately captured.
That overlapping structure is apparent throughout the INA. First, the aggravated felony list itself has multiple fail-safe provisions. Most serious offenses, for instance, will qualify as "crime[s] of violence ... for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year," 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), even if they are not covered by a more specific provision in the aggravated felony list. Had his crime been charged as a more serious arson and had he been punished by one year of imprisonment instead of one day, Luna might have qualified as an aggravated felon under that provision. See Santana v. Holder, 714 F.3d 140, 145 (C.A.2 2013) (second-degree arson in New York is a "crime of violence").
Second, other sections of the INA provide intertwining coverage for serious crimes. Some examples of provisions that encompass many offenses include those for the commission of a "crime involving moral turpitude," a firearms offense, or a controlled substance offense, all of which will render a noncitizen removable, even if he or she has not committed an aggravated felony. See §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), (B)(i), (C) ; §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)-(ii). Cf. Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 48, 132 S.Ct. 476, 181 L.Ed.2d 449 (2011) (commenting on the breadth of the "crime involving moral turpitude" provision).
And finally, in Luna's case or anyone else's, the Attorney General can exercise her discretion to deny relief to a serious criminal whether or not that criminal has been convicted of an aggravated felony. See Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at 581, 130 S.Ct. 2577 (doubting that a narrow reading of § 1101(a)(43) will have "any practical effect on policing our Nation's borders").
To be sure, on Luna's reading, some serious conduct may not be captured by the INA. But not nearly so much as the majority suggests. By contrast, once the aggravated felony statute applies to a noncitizen, no provision in the INA-and virtually no act by the Attorney General-can prevent him or her from being removed.
Looking for consistency in the aggravated felony provisions of the INA is often a fool's errand. See Kawashima, 565 U.S., at ----, n. 2, 132 S.Ct., at 1171, n. 2 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting) (noting the absurdity of making a tax misdemeanor, but not driving while drunk and causing serious bodily injury, an aggravated felony). But the structure of the INA gives the Court no reason to read the aggravated felony provisions as broadly as possible. That is why this Court has repeatedly cautioned against interpreting the aggravated felony section to sweep in offenses that-like many state arson convictions-may be neither aggravated nor felonies. See Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at 574, 130 S.Ct. 2577 ; Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as Amici Curiae 28-29 (collecting state misdemeanor arson statutes).
III
The majority denies Luna the opportunity to present his case to the Attorney General based on two "contextual considerations," ante, at 1626, and an intuition about how the statute ought to work. None are sufficiently persuasive to overcome the most natural reading of the aggravated felony statute.
A
The majority first perceives a conflict between Luna's reading of the INA and what it calls the "penultimate sentence" of the aggravated felony statute. The "penultimate sentence" provides that an offense can be an aggravated felony "whether in violation of Federal or State law" or "in violation of the law of a foreign country." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). The majority claims that Luna's reading of the INA would vitiate the quoted proviso. Ante, at 1623 - 1628.
It is true that, on Luna's reading, some of the aggravated felonies listed in the INA (including "an offense described in" § 844(i) ) will have no state or foreign analog. But the proviso still applies to generic offenses, which constitute nearly half of the entries in the aggravated felony list. See, e.g., §§ 1101(a)(43)(A), (G), (M)(i). And that already-large portion jumps to close to three-quarters of the offenses after counting those many listed federal statutes with no jurisdictional element. See, e.g., §§ 1101(a)(43)(C), (E)(ii), (J). In fact, it applies to the vast majority of offenses adjudicated under the INA given that most serious crimes are also "crimes of violence." See § 1101(a)(43)(F).
And the majority must admit that its interpretation will also leave entries in the aggravated-felony section with no state or foreign analogs. For instance, it seems unlikely that the proviso contemplates state analogs for the aggravated felony provisions regarding treason, levying war against the United States, or disclosing national defense information. See §§ 1101(a)(43)(L)(i), (P).
In other words, under Luna's reading, the "penultimate sentence" applies to most, but not all, of the entries of the aggravated felony statute; under the majority's reading, the "penultimate sentence" also applies to most, but not all, of the entries of the aggravated felony statute. The majority's first "contextual consideration" thus supplies no reason to prefer one reading over the other.
B
Just as important, the majority suggests, is a "settled practice of distinguishing between substantive ... elements"-those that define "the evil Congress seeks to prevent"-and "jurisdictional element[s]," which merely "establis[h] legislative authority." Ante, at 1630. The majority admits that the Court does not distinguish between substantive and jurisdictional elements for many purposes, such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the right to a jury trial. Ibid .; see Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 606, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). But it nonetheless insists on a standard distinction so entrenched that Congress must have intended it to apply even absent any particular indication in the INA.
None of the three examples that the majority proffers is evidence of such a strong norm. First, the majority invokes our rules for interpreting criminal statutes. Ante, at 1630 - 1631. Whereas our general assumption is that a defendant must know each fact making his conduct illegal, courts generally hold that a criminal defendant need not know the facts that satisfy the jurisdictional element of a statute.
But jurisdictional elements are not the only elements a defendant need not know. Under the "default rule," ante, at 1632, n. 12, for interpreting so-called "public welfare" offenses, courts have held that a defendant need not know that the substance he possesses is a narcotic, that the device he possesses is unregistered, or that he reentered the United States after previously being deported. See Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 606-609, 611, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994) (citing United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 42 S.Ct. 301, 66 L.Ed. 604 (1922), and United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 91 S.Ct. 1112, 28 L.Ed.2d 356 (1971) ); United States v. Burwell, 690 F.3d 500, 508-509 (C.A.D.C.2012) ; United States v. Giambro, 544 F.3d 26, 29 (C.A.1 2008) ; United States v. Martinez-Morel, 118 F.3d 710, 715-717 (C.A.10 1997). But surely the majority would not suggest that if we agree with those holdings regarding mens rea, we must then ignore the "controlled substance" element of the drug trafficking aggravated felony, the "unregistered" element of the unregistered firearms aggravated felony, or the "following deportation" element of the illegal reentry aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B), (E)(iii), (M)(i), (O). So there is likewise no reason to believe that the "default rule" for assigning mens rea to jurisdictional elements is embedded in the INA.
The majority next points to two of the many statutes that, like the INA, require comparing the elements of federal and state offenses. But in each case, it is the statute's language and context, not some "settled practice," ante, at 1630 - 1631, that command the omission of the jurisdictional element.
The majority's first example, ante, at 1631 - 1632, is the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13(a), a gap-filling statute that incorporates state criminal law into federal enclaves if the "act or omission" is not "made punishable by any enactment of Congress" but "would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State." The Court held that, in identifying such a gap, courts should ignore "jurisdictional, or other technical," differences between a state and federal statute. Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155, 165, 118 S.Ct. 1135, 140 L.Ed.2d 271 (1998). But the way courts match the elements of a state law to a federal analog under the Assimilative Crimes Act differs fundamentally from our INA inquiry. The basic question under the Assimilative Crimes Act is whether "federal statutes reveal an intent to occupy so much of the field as would exclude the use of the particular state statute at issue." Id., at 164, 118 S.Ct. 1135. Under the Assimilative Crimes Act, the state statute is not compared to a single federal statute, but rather to a complex of federal statutes that roughly cover the same general conduct and "policies." Ibid. That statute thus has little to teach us about 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) : In interpreting the Assimilative Crimes Act, every Member of the Court rejected the simple elements-matching approach that the Court generally employs to construe the aggravated felony provisions of the INA. See 523 U.S., at 182, 118 S.Ct. 1135 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting) (allowing "slight differences" in definition between federal and state statute and using "same-elements inquiry" only as a "starting point").
The majority's analogy to the federal three strikes statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(2)(F), ante, at 1631 - 1632, is similarly unhelpful. That provision counts as a predicate " 'serious violent felony' " any " 'Federal or State offense ... wherever committed, consisting of' " various crimes, including several " 'as described in' " federal statutes. Ante, at 1631. (emphasis added). Though this Court has not construed the statute, the majority notes that courts of appeals disregard the jurisdictional element of federal statutes in assessing whether a state conviction is for a "serious violent felony." Ante, at 1630 - 1631. But nearly all of the statutes listed in § 3559(c)(2)(F) contain place-based jurisdiction elements-the crime must take place "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States," e.g., § 1111(b), or within "the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States," 49 U.S.C. § 46502, and so on. In the two cases cited by the majority, for instance, ante, at 1631 - 1632, Courts of Appeals concluded that a state robbery offense qualified as an offense "described in" the federal bank robbery statute even though the robbery did not take place in a bank. See United States v. Wicks, 132 F.3d 383, 387 (C.A.7 1997) ; United States v. Rosario-Delgado, 198 F.3d 1354, 1357 (C.A.11 1999). In that statute, it is the "wherever committed," not some loose construction of "described in," that specifically instructs the courts that the location where a crime occurs does not matter.
Moreover, in other statutes where Congress wants to exclude jurisdictional elements when comparing state and federal offenses, it ordinarily just says so. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(2)(A) (requiring detention of defendant pending trial if "the person has been convicted ... of a State or local offense that would have been an offense described in subsection (f)(1) of this section if a circumstance giving rise to Federal jurisdiction had existed"); § 2265A(b)(1)(B); § 2426(b)(1)(B); § 3142(f)(1)(D) ; § 5032; 42 U.S.C. §§ 671(a)(15)(D)(ii)(I)-(II) ; §§ 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xvi)(I)-(II). Absent comparably clear language, the Court should not presume that the INA intended deportability to depend on a not-so-"settled practice," ante, at 1630, of occasionally distinguishing between substantive and jurisdictional elements.
C
Finally, the majority suggests that it would be "peculiarly perverse," ante, at 1628, to adopt Luna's plain-text reading of the statute because it would draw a distinction among crimes based on a jurisdictional element that the majority assumes is wholly divorced from "the evil Congress seeks to prevent," ante, at 1630. The jurisdictional element of a federal statute, the majority asserts, is as trivial as the perfunctory warning on a new electronic device: "[A] person would say that she had followed the instructions for setting up an iPhone that are 'described in' the user's manual, even if she in fact ignored the one" instructing that she "begin by 'read[ing] important safety information.' " Ante, at 1626, n. 5; see also ibid. (comparing jurisdictional element to a "detour" in a 3-week itinerary).
For instance, the majority assumes that it would not be "plausible," ante, at 1629, for Congress to have thought that interstate crimes are worse than wholly intrastate crimes. Perhaps. But when faced with an offense that, like arson, admits of a range of conduct, from the minor to the serious, Congress could plausibly have concluded that arsons prosecuted as federal crimes are more uniformly serious than arsons prosecuted as state crimes and counted only the former as aggravated felonies. See, e.g., Klein et al., Why Federal Prosecutors Charge: A Comparison of Federal and New York State Arson and Robbery Filings, 2006-2010, 51 Houston L. Rev. 1381, 1406, 1416-1419 (2014) (finding that arsons prosecuted federally involve more property damage and more injury than arsons prosecuted under state law).
That is because, far from being token, "conventional jurisdictional elements" serve to narrow the kinds of crimes that can be prosecuted, not just to specify the sovereign that can do the prosecuting. Take the federal statute at issue in this case. Section 844(i) requires that the property destroyed be "used in interstate ... commerce." The Court has held that "standard, jurisdictional" element, ante, at 1634, demands the property's "active employment for commercial purposes, and not merely a passive, passing, or past connection to commerce." Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 855, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000). As a result, the Court held that a defendant who threw a Molotov cocktail through the window of an owner-occupied residential house could not be guilty under § 844(i) because the house was not "active[ly] used" in interstate commerce. Id ., at 851, 120 S.Ct. 1904. Surely, however, a New York prosecutor could have secured a conviction under N.Y. Penal Law Ann. § 150.10 had the same crime been prosecuted in state, rather than federal, court.
The difference between an offense under N.Y. Penal Law Ann. § 150.10 and an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) is thus more than a technical consideration about which authority chooses to prosecute. It is a difference that goes to the magnitude and nature of the "evil," ante, at 1630, itself.
* * *
On the majority's reading, long-time legal permanent residents with convictions for minor state offenses are foreclosed from even appealing to the mercy of the Attorney General. Against our standard method for comparing statutes and the text and structure of the INA, the majority stacks a supposed superfluity, a not-so-well-settled practice, and its conviction that jurisdictional elements are mere technicalities. But an element is an element, and I would not so lightly strip a federal statute of one. I respectfully dissent.
Compare Espinal-Andrades v. Holder, 777 F.3d 163 (C.A.4 2015) (finding an aggravated felony in that circumstance); Spacek v. Holder, 688 F.3d 536 (C.A.8 2012) (same); Nieto Hernandez v. Holder, 592 F.3d 681 (C.A.5 2009) (same); Negrete-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 497 (C.A.7 2008) (same); United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020 (C.A.9 2001) (same), with Bautista v. Attorney General, 744 F.3d 54 (C.A.3 2014) (declining to find an aggravated felony).
That flat statement is infinitesimally shy of being wholly true. We have found a handful of state criminal laws with an interstate commerce element, out of the tens (or perhaps hundreds) of thousands of state crimes on the books. Mississippi, for example, lifted essentially verbatim the text of the federal money laundering statute when drafting its own, and thus wound up with such an element. See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-23-101 (rev. 2014). But because the incidence of such laws is so vanishingly small, and the few that exist play no role in Luna's arguments, we proceed without qualifying each statement of the kind above.
Black's Law Dictionary 401 (5th ed. 1979) (defining "describe" as to "express, explain, set forth, relate, recount, narrate, depict, delineate, portray"). Luna also cites Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 307 (1976), which defines "describe" to mean "to represent or give an account of in words."
See American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 490 (5th ed. 2011) (defining "describe" as "[t]o convey an idea or impression of "); Webster's Third New International Dictionary 610 (1986) (defining "describe" as "to convey an image or notion of" or "trace or traverse the outline of ").
The dissent disagrees, contending that the word "describe" decides this case in Luna's favor because a "description cannot refer to features that the thing being described does not have." Post, at 1636 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). Says the dissent: If a Craigslist ad "describes" an apartment as having an "in-unit laundry, a dishwasher, rooftop access, central A/C, and a walk-in closet," it does not describe an apartment lacking rooftop access. Ibid. That is true enough, but irrelevant. The dissent is right that when someone describes an object by a list of specific characteristics, he means that the item has each of those attributes. But things are different when someone uses a more general descriptor-even when that descriptor (as here, a federal statute) itself has a determinate set of elements. It would be natural, for example, to say (in the exact syntax of § 1101(a)(43) ) that a person followed the itinerary for a journey through Brazil that is "described in" a Lonely Planet guide if he traveled every leg of the tour other than a brief "detour north to Petrópolis." The Lonely Planet, On the Road: Destination Brazil, http://media.lonelyplanet.com/shop/pdfs/brazil-8-getting-started.pdf (all Internet materials as last visited May 16, 2016). And similarly, a person would say that she had followed the instructions for setting up an iPhone that are "described in" the user's manual even if she in fact ignored the one (specifically highlighted there) telling her to begin by "read[ing] important safety information" to "avoid injury." Apple, Set Up iPhone, http://help.apple.com/iphone/9/#iph3bf43d79.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(D) ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1956, which criminalizes laundering of monetary instruments); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1957, which criminalizes engaging in monetary transactions involving property derived from specified unlawful activities); § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i) (three "offense[s] described in" 18 U.S.C. §§ 842(h) -(i), 844(d), which criminalize activities involving explosives); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 844(e), which criminalizes threatening to cause death, injury, or property damage using explosives); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), which criminalizes using fire or explosives to cause property damage); § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii) (six "offense[s] described in" 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)-(5), ( j), which criminalize possessing a firearm in various circumstances); ibid. (two "offense[s] described in" 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n), 924(b), which criminalize transporting or receiving a firearm under certain circumstances); § 1101(a)(43)(E)(iii) ("an offense described in" 26 U.S.C. § 5861( j), which criminalizes transporting an unregistered firearm); § 1101(a)(43)(H) ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 875, which criminalizes making a threat to kidnap or a ransom demand); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1202(b), which criminalizes possessing, receiving, or transmitting proceeds of a kidnapping); § 1101(a)(43)(I) ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 2251, which criminalizes sexually exploiting a child); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 2251A, which criminalizes selling a child for purposes of child pornography); ibid. ("an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 2252, which criminalizes various activities relating to child pornography); § 1101(a)(43)(J) ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1962, which criminalizes activities relating to racketeering); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1084, which criminalizes transmitting information to facilitate gambling); § 1101(a)(43)(K)(ii) ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 2421, which criminalizes transporting a person for purposes of prostitution); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 2422, which criminalizes coercing or enticing a person to travel for purposes of prostitution); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 2423, which criminalizes transporting a child for purposes of prostitution); § 1101(a)(43)(K)(iii) ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), which criminalizes sex trafficking of children, or of adults by force, fraud, or coercion).
The dissent replies: What's the big deal? See post, at 1639. After all, it reasons, some listed federal statutes-specifically, those prohibiting treason, levying war against the United States, and disclosing national defense information-will lack state or foreign analogues even under our construction. See ibid. But Congress's inclusion of a few federal offenses that, by their nature, have no state or foreign analogues hardly excuses expelling from the Act's coverage the countless state and foreign versions of 27 other serious crimes.
Luna's position, in addition to producing this bizarre patchwork of coverage, conflicts with our ordinary assumption that Congress, when drafting a statute, gives each provision independent meaning. See United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65, 56 S.Ct. 312, 80 L.Ed. 477 (1936) ("These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used"). Until its most recent amendment, § 1101(a)(43)(J) provided that the term "aggravated felony" included any "offense described in [18 U.S.C. § 1962 ] (relating to racketeer influenced corrupt organizations) for which a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment or more may be imposed." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(J) (1994 ed., Supp. I). (That provision now incorporates two more federal crimes, and uses one year of prison as the threshold.) The federal racketeering statute cited has an interstate commerce element; analogous state and foreign laws (per usual) do not, and therefore would fall outside § 1101(a)(43)(J) on Luna's reading. But if Congress had meant to so exclude those state and foreign counterparts, then § 1101(a)(43)(J)'s final clause-"for which a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment may be imposed"-would have been superfluous, because federal racketeering is always punishable by more than five years' imprisonment, see 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a). That language's presence shows that Congress thought § 1101(a)(43)(J) would sweep in some state and foreign laws: The final clause served to filter out such statutes when-but only when-they applied to less serious conduct than the federal racketeering offense.
The dissent attempts a variant of Luna's "not so serious" argument, but to no better effect. Claims the dissent: Even if Congress could not have viewed "interstate crimes [as] worse than wholly intrastate crimes," it might have thought that, say, "arsons prosecuted as federal crimes are more uniformly serious than arsons prosecuted as state crimes." Post, at 1641 (emphasis added). But we see no call to suppose that Congress regarded state prosecutions as Grapefruit League versions of the Big Show. Cf. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 427, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). In our federal system, "States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing" criminal laws, including those prohibiting the gravest crimes. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 635, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). For that reason, even when U.S. Attorneys have jurisdiction, they are generally to defer to, rather than supplant, state prosecutions of serious offenses. See U.S. Attorneys' Manual: Principles of Federal Prosecution § 9-27.240 (1997). And still more obviously, the dissent's theory fails with respect to foreign convictions. That a foreign sovereign prosecutes a given crime reflects nothing about its gravity, but only about its location.
In all those States, arsons of every description (whether of one's own or another's property) would fall outside the "crime of violence" provision. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29, 46 (Solicitor General noting that the categorical approach to comparing federal and state crimes produces that effect). And contrary to the dissent's suggestion, post, at 1637, n. 2, that would be true of the most dangerous arsons, as well as of less serious ones. The dissent similarly fails to take into account the categorical approach's rigorous requirements when discussing a couple of the non-arson offenses discussed above. (Still others, the dissent wholly ignores.) It speculates that if the exact right state charge is filed, some of that conduct "may" qualify, through the crime-of-violence provision or some other route, as an aggravated felony. Ibid. "May" is very much the operative word there, because-depending on the elements of the state offense chosen-that conduct also "may not." And the dissent never explains why Congress would have left the deportation of dangerous felons to such prosecutorial happenstance.
The dissent well-nigh embraces those consequences, arguing that a narrow reading of "aggravated felony" would make more convicted criminals removable under other statutory provisions, all of which allow for relief at the Attorney General's discretion. See post, at 1638, 1642 (lamenting that aliens convicted of aggravated felonies may not "even appeal[ ] to the mercy of the Attorney General"). But Congress made a judgment that aliens convicted of certain serious offenses (irrespective of whether those convictions were based on federal, state, or foreign law) should be not only removable but also ineligible for discretionary relief. It is not our place to second-guess that decision.
The dissent declares our discussion of the three-strikes law, the Assimilative Crime Act (ACA), and mens rea "unhelpful" on the ground that all three contexts are somehow "differ[ent]." Post, at 1639 - 1641. But what makes them relevantly so the dissent fails to explain. First, the dissent errs in suggesting that the uniform judicial interpretation of the three-strikes law ignores only "place-based jurisdiction elements" (because, so says the dissent, of the phrase "wherever committed"). Post, at 1640. As Judge Wood's analysis indicates, that is a theory of the dissent's own creation; the actual appellate decisions apply to all jurisdictional elements, not just territorial ones. Next, the dissent goes wrong in claiming that the ACA is not pertinent because this Court adopted a different method for matching substantive elements under that law than under the INA. See post, at 1640. For even as the Court made that choice, it unanimously agreed that, however substantive elements should be compared, jurisdictional elements should be disregarded. See Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155, 165, 118 S.Ct. 1135, 140 L.Ed.2d 271 (1998) ; id., at 182, 118 S.Ct. 1135 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting). And finally, the dissent does nothing to undermine our point on mens rea by noting that Congress very occasionally dispenses with that requirement for substantive elements. See post, at 1639 - 1640. As just shown, the default rule respecting mental states flips as between jurisdictional and substantive elements, see supra, at 1630 - 1631-reflecting the view (also at play in the three-strikes and ACA contexts) that Congress generally means to treat the two differently. That leaves the dissent with nothing except its observation that when applying the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt and jury-trial requirements, the Court does not distinguish between jurisdictional and substantive elements. See post, at 1639. But the dissent forgets that those commands are constitutional in nature; a principle of statutory interpretation distinguishing between the two kinds of elements, as best reflecting Congress's intent, could not bear on those mandates.
Many of the majority's own examples of "the gravest" state offenses supposedly excluded from the aggravated felony list by Luna's reading actually fall within these fail-safe provisions. Ante, at 1628. Many state arsons will qualify as "crime[s] of violence" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), see, e.g., Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 279 (C.A.4 2007) ; an even greater fraction of the most serious arsons will fall under that heading because States like New York have enacted gradated statutes under which more severe degrees of arson are crimes of violence, see Santana, 714 F.3d, at 145. To take another of the majority's examples, while a state conviction for demanding a ransom in a kidnaping is not "an offense described in [18 U.S.C. § 875 ]" under § 1101(a)(43)(H), a state conviction for kidnaping or conspiring to kidnap may qualify as a crime of violence under § 1101(a)(43)(F). See United States v. Kaplansky, 42 F.3d 320 (C.A.6 1994).
And even under the majority's reading, a state-law conviction will only qualify as an aggravated felony if the "right state charge is filed." Ante, at 1630, n. 10. For example, even on the majority's reading, a state-court defendant who sells a child for purposes of child pornography is unlikely to be convicted of "an offense described in [18 U.S.C.] § 2251A," see § 1101(a)(43)(I). That is because virtually no States have a statute corresponding to 18 U.S.C. § 2251A, with or without the interstate commerce element. (But see Fla. Stat. § 847.0145 (2015).) Such a defendant may, however, be convicted of a state offense that qualifies as an aggravated felony for conspiring to commit sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(U) and 1101(a)(43)(A).
Other crimes in the majority's list of serious offenses, ante, at 1628 - 1630, will be covered by these separate INA provisions. For example, the Board of Immigration Appeals has held that any child pornography offense is a "crime involving moral turpitude," rendering a noncitizen removable in many cases. See §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), 1182(a)(2)(A)(i) ; In re Olquin-Rufino, 23 I. & N. Dec. 896 (BIA 2006). Any offense involving a gun would make a noncitizen deportable under one of the catchall provisions for buying, selling, or possessing a firearm in violation of "any law." See § 1227(a)(2)(C).
If the aggravated felony provisions were the primary mechanism for removing serious noncitizen criminals, we would expect any noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony to face immigration consequences. In fact, the aggravated felony provisions only apply to noncitizens who are lawfully admitted or later paroled. Matter of Alyazji, 25 I. & N. Dec. 397, 399 (BIA 2011). Other noncitizens-such as undocumented immigrants, noncitizens applying for a visa, or some legal permanent residents returning after an extended stay abroad-cannot be removed based on the conviction of an aggravated felony; the Government must rely on the other provisions of the INA, including the statute's other criminal provisions, to remove such noncitizens. See §§ 1101(a)(13)(A), 1182, 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
Similarly, if the aggravated felony provision were the only way to ensure that the Attorney General exercised her discretion wisely, we would expect that discretion to be constrained as to all noncitizens who potentially pose a threat to the United States. In fact, the Attorney General is not prevented from granting cancellation of removal-the discretionary relief at issue in this case-to, for instance, a noncitizen who has not been convicted of a crime but is removable for having "received military-type training" from a terrorist organization. See §§ 1227(a)(4)(B), 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VIII), 1229b(a).
In short, it cannot be the case that the aggravated felony provisions were intended to be the statute's sole mechanism for identifying the most dangerous noncitizens.
When the proviso was added to the INA in 1990, it would have applied to an even greater fraction of the aggravated felonies: At that time, the aggravated felony statute listed only five offenses, four of which would have had state analogs even on Luna's reading. See 104 Stat. 5048 (1990). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the manner in which the Court took jurisdiction. The Court uses a variety of means whereby it undertakes to consider cases that it has been petitioned to review. The most important ones are the writ of certiorari, the writ of appeal, and for legacy cases the writ of error, appeal, and certification. For cases that fall into more than one category, identify the manner in which the court takes jurisdiction on the basis of the writ. For example, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), an original jurisdiction and a mandamus case, should be coded as mandamus rather than original jurisdiction due to the nature of the writ. Some legacy cases are "original" motions or requests for the Court to take jurisdiction but were heard or filed in another court. For example, Ex parte Matthew Addy S.S. & Commerce Corp., 256 U.S. 417 (1921) asked the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal judge. Do not code these cases as "original" jurisdiction cases but rather on the basis of the writ. | What is the manner in which the Court took jurisdiction? | [
"cert",
"appeal",
"bail",
"certification",
"docketing fee",
"rehearing or restored to calendar for reargument",
"injunction",
"mandamus",
"original",
"prohibition",
"stay",
"writ of error",
"writ of habeas corpus",
"unspecified, other"
] | [
0
] | sc |
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS v. PATCHAK et al.
No. 11-246.
Argued April 24, 2012
Decided June 18, 2012
Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Auto, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 228.
Eric D. Miller argued the cause for petitioners in No. 11-247. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Ver-rilli, Assistant Attorney General Moreno, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, and Aaron P. Avila.
Patricia A. Millett argued the cause for petitioner in No. 11-246. With her on the briefs were James T Meggesto, James E. Tysse, Michael C. Small, Conly J. Schulte, Shilee T Mullin, and Amit Kurlekar.
Matthew T. Nelson argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With him on the brief for respondent Patchak were Daniel P. Ettinger, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Nicole L. Mazzocco, and Brian J. Murray.
Together with No. 11-247, Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Patchak et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal in both cases were filed for the National Congress of American Indians et al. by Vernle C. Durocher, Jr., and Timothy J. Droske; and for Wayland Township et al. by Michael D. Homier, Robert A. Long, Jr., and Ross B. Goldman.
David B. Salmons filed a brief for 28 California Community Groups as amici curiae urging affirmance in both cases.
Justice Kagan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A provision of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), 25 U. S. C. § 465, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire property “for the purpose of providing land for Indians.” Ch. 576, § 5, 48 Stat. 985. The Secretary here acquired land in trust for an Indian tribe seeking to open a casino. Respondent David Patchak lives near that land and challenges the Secretary’s decision in a suit brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 701 et seq. Patchak claims that the Secretary lacked authority under § 465 to take title to the land, and alleges economic, environmental, and aesthetic harms from the casino’s operation.
We consider two questions arising from Patchak’s action. The first is whether the United States has sovereign immunity from the suit by virtue of the Quiet Title Act (QTA), 86 Stat. 1176. We think it does not. The second is whether Patchak has prudential standing to challenge the Secretary’s acquisition. We think he does. We therefore hold that Patchak’s suit may proceed.
1—1
The Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (Band) is an Indian tribe residing in rural Michigan. Although the Band has a long history, the Department of the Interior (DOI) formally recognized it only in 1999. See 63 Fed. Reg. 56936 (1998). Two years later, the Band petitioned the Secretary to exercise her authority under §465 by taking into trust a tract of land in Wayland Township, Michigan, known as the Bradley Property. The Band’s application explained that the Band would use the property “for gaming purposes,” with the goal of generating the “revenue necessary to promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency and a strong tribal government capable of providing its members with sorely needed social and educational programs.” App. 52, 41.
In 2005, after a lengthy administrative review, the Secretary announced her decision to acquire the Bradley Property in trust for the Band. See 70 Fed. Reg. 25596. In accordance with applicable regulations, the Secretary committed to wait 30 days before taking action, so that interested parties could seek judicial review. See ibid.; 25 CFR § 151.12(b) (2011). Within that window, an organization called Michigan Gambling Opposition (or MichGO) filed suit alleging that the Secretary’s decision violated environmental and gaming statutes. The Secretary held off taking title to the property while that litigation proceeded. Within the next few years, a District Court and the D. C. Circuit rejected MichGO’s claims. See Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne, 525 F. 3d 23, 27-28 (CADC 2008); Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Norton, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1 (DC 2007).
Shortly after the D. C. Circuit ruled against MichGO (but still before the Secretary took title), Patchak filed this suit under the APA advancing a different legal theory. He asserted that § 465 did not authorize the Secretary to acquire property for the Band because it was not a federally recognized tribe when the IRA was enacted in 1934. See App. 37. To establish his standing to bring suit, Patchak contended that he lived “in close proximity to” the Bradley Property and that a casino there would “destroy the lifestyle he has enjoyed” by causing “increased traffic,” “increased crime,” “decreased property values,” “an irreversible change in the rural character of the area,” and “other aesthetic, socioeconomic, and environmental problems.” Id., at 30-31. Notably, Patchak did not assert any claim of his own to the Bradley Property. He requested only a declaration that the decision to acquire the land violated the IRA and an injunction to stop the Secretary from accepting title. See id., at 38-39. The Band intervened in the suit to defend the Secretary’s decision.
In January 2009, about five months after Patchak filed suit, this Court denied certiorari in MichGO’s case, 555 U. S. 1137, and the Secretary took the Bradley Property into trust. That action mooted Patchak’s request for an injunction to prevent the acquisition, and all parties agree that the suit now effectively seeks to divest the Federal Government of title to the land. See Brief for Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians 17 (hereinafter Tribal Petitioner); Brief for Federal Parties 11; Brief for Respondent Patchak 24-25. The month after the Government took title, this Court held in Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U. S. 379, 382 (2009), that § 465 authorizes the Secretary to take land into trust only for tribes that were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934.
The District Court dismissed the suit without considering the merits (including the relevance of Carcieri), ruling that Patchak lacked prudential standing to challenge the Secretary’s acquisition of the Bradley Property. The court reasoned that the injuries Patchak alleged fell outside §465’s “zone of interests.” 646 F. Supp. 2d 72, 76 (DC 2009). The D. C. Circuit reversed that determination. See 632 F. 3d 702, 704-707 (2011). The court also rejected the Secretary’s and the Band’s alternative argument that by virtue of the QTA, sovereign immunity barred the suit. See id., at 707-712. The latter ruling conflicted with decisions of three Circuits holding that the United States has immunity from suits like Patchak’s. See Neighbors for Rational Development, Inc. v. Norton, 379 F. 3d 956, 961-962 (CA10 2004); Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern Cal. v. United States, 830 F. 2d 139, 143-144 (CA9 1987) (per curiam); Florida Dept. of Bus. Regulation v. Department of Interior, 768 F. 2d 1248, 1253-1255 (CA11 1985). We granted certiorari to review both of the D. C. Circuit’s holdings, 565 U. S. 1092 (2011), and we now affirm.
II
We begin by considering whether the United States’ sovereign immunity bars Patchak’s suit under the APA. That requires us first to look to the APA itself and then, for reasons we will describe, to the QTA. We conclude that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity from Patchak’s action.
The APA generally waives the Federal Government’s immunity from a suit “seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority.” 5 U. S. C. § 702. That waiver would appear to cover Patchak’s suit, which objects to official action of the Secretary and seeks only non-monetary relief. But the APA’s waiver of immunity comes with an important carve-out: The waiver does not apply “if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought” by the plaintiff. Ibid. That provision prevents plaintiffs from exploiting the APA’s waiver to evade limitations on suit contained in other statutes. The question thus becomes whether another statute bars Patch-ak’s demand for relief.
The Government and Band contend that the QTA does so. The QTA authorizes (and so waives the Government’s sovereign immunity from) a particular type of action, known as a quiet title suit: a suit by a plaintiff asserting a “right, title, or interest” in real property that conflicts with a “right, title, or interest” the United States claims. 28 U. S. C. § 2409a(d). The statute, however, contains an exception: The QTA’s authorization of suit “does not apply to trust or restricted Indian lands.” § 2409a(a). According to the Government and Band, that limitation on quiet title suits satisfies the APA’s carve-out and so forbids Patchak’s suit. In the Band’s words, the QTA exception retains “the United States’ full immunity from suits seeking to challenge its title to or impair its legal interest in Indian trust lands.” Brief for Tribal Petitioner 18.
Two hypothetical examples might help to frame consideration of this argument. First, suppose Patchak had sued under the APA claiming that he owned the Bradley Property and that the Secretary therefore could not take it into trust. The QTA would bar that suit, for reasons just suggested. True, it fits within the APA’s general waiver, but the QTA specifically authorizes quiet title actions (which this hypothetical suit is) except when they involve Indian lands (which this hypothetical suit does). In such a circumstance, a plaintiff cannot use the APA to end-run the QTA’s limitations. “[W]hen Congress has dealt in particularity with a claim and [has] intended a specified remedy”—including its exceptions—to be exclusive, that is the end of the matter; the APA does not undo the judgment. Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School Lands, 461 U. S. 273, 286, n. 22 (1983) (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 94-1656, p. 13 (1976)).
But now suppose that Patchak had sued under the APA claiming only that use of the Bradley Property was causing environmental harm, and raising no objection at all to the Secretary’s title. The QTA could not bar that suit because even though involving Indian lands, it asserts a grievance altogether different from the kind the statute concerns. Justice Scalia, in a former life as Assistant Attorney General, made this precise point in a letter to Congress about the APA’s waiver of immunity (which we hasten to add, given the author, we use not as legislative history, but only for its persuasive force). When a statute “is not addressed to the type of grievance which the plaintiff seeks to assert,” then the statute cannot prevent an APA suit. Id., at 28 (May 10, 1976, letter of Assistant Atty. Gen. A. Scalia).
We think that principle controls Patehak’s case: The QTA’s “Indian lands” clause does not render the Government immune because the QTA addresses a kind of grievance different from the one Patchak advances. As we will explain, the QTA—whose full name, recall, is the Quiet Title Act— concerns (no great surprise) quiet title actions. And Patch-ak’s suit is not a quiet title action, because although it contests the Secretary’s title, it does not claim any competing interest in the Bradley Property. That fact makes the QTA’s “Indian lands” limitation simply inapposite to this litigation.
In reaching this conclusion, we need look no further than the QTA’s text. From its title to its jurisdictional grant to its venue provision, the Act speaks specifically and repeatedly of “quiet title” actions. See 86 Stat. 1176 (“An Act [t]o permit suits to adjudicate certain real property quiet title actions”); 28 U. S. C. § 1346(f) (giving district courts jurisdiction over “civil actions ... to quiet title” to property in which the United States claims an interest); § 1402(d) (setting forth venue for “[a]ny civil action ... to quiet title” to property in which the United States claims an interest). That term is universally understood to refer to suits in which a plaintiff not only challenges someone else’s claim, but also asserts his own right to disputed property. See, e. g., Black’s Law Dictionary 34 (9th ed. 2009) (defining an “action to quiet title” as “[a] proceeding to establish a plaintiff’s title to land by compelling the adverse claimant to establish a claim or be forever estopped from asserting it”); Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U. S. 308, 315 (2005) (“[T]he facts showing the plaintiff’s title . . . are essential parts of the plaintiff’s [quiet title] cause of action” (quoting Hopkins v. Walker, 244 U. S. 486, 490 (1917))).
And the QTA’s other provisions make clear that the recurrent statutory term “quiet title action” carries its ordinary meaning. The QTA directs that the complaint in such an action “shall set forth with particularity the nature of the right, title, or interest which the plaintiff claims in the real property.” 28 U. S. C. § 2409a(d). If the plaintiff does not assert any such right (as Patchak does not), the statute cannot come into play. Further, the QTA provides an option for the United States, if it loses the suit, to pay “just compensation,” rather than return the property, to the “person determined to be entitled” to it. §2409a(b). That provision makes perfect sense in a quiet title action: If the plaintiff is found to own the property, the Government can satisfy his claim through an award of money (while still retaining the land for its operations). But the provision makes no sense in a suit like this one, where Patchak does not assert a right to the property. If the United States loses the suit, an award of just compensation to the rightful owner (whoever and wherever he might be) could do nothing to satisfy Patch-ak’s claim.
In two prior cases, we likewise described the QTA as addressing suits in which the plaintiff asserts an ownership interest in Government-held property. In Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School Lands, 461 U. S. 273 (1982), we considered North Dakota’s claim to land that the United States viewed as its own. We held that the State could not circumvent the QTA’s statute of limitations by invoking other causes of action, among them the APA. See id., at 277-278, 286, n. 22. The crux of our reasoning was that Congress had enacted the QTA to address exactly the kind of suit North Dakota had brought. Prior to the QTA, we explained, “citizens asserting title to or the right to possession of lands claimed by the United States” had no recourse; by passing the statute, “Congress sought to rectify this state of affairs.” Id., at 282. Our decision reflected that legislative purpose: Congress, we held, “intended the QTA to provide the exclusive means by which adverse claimants could challenge the United States’ title to real property.” Id., at 286. We repeat: “adverse claimants,” meaning plaintiffs who themselves assert a claim to property-antagonistic to the Federal Government’s.
Our decision in United States v. Mottaz, 476 U. S. 834 (1986), is of a piece. There, we considered whether the QTA, or instead the Tucker Act or General Allotment Act, governed the plaintiff’s suit respecting certain allotments of land held by the United States. We thought the QTA the relevant statute because the plaintiff herself asserted title to the property. Our opinion quoted the plaintiff’s own description of her suit: “At no time in this proceeding did [the plaintiff] drop her claim for title. To the contrary, the claim for title is the essence and bottom line of [the plaintiff’s] case.” Id., at 842 (quoting Brief for Respondent in Mottaz, O. T. 1985, No. 85-546, p. 3). That fact, we held, brought the suit “within the [QTA’s] scope”: “What [the plaintiff] seeks is a declaration that she alone possesses valid title.” 476 U. S., at 842. So once again, we construed the QTA as addressing suits by adverse claimants.
But Patchak is not an adverse claimant—and so the QTA (more specifically, its reservation of sovereign immunity from actions respecting Indian trust lands) cannot bar his suit. Patchak does not contend that he owns the Bradley Property, nor does he seek any relief corresponding to such a claim. He wants a court to strip the United States of title to the land, but not on the ground that it is his and not so that he can possess it. Patchak’s lawsuit therefore lacks a defining feature of a QTA action. He is not trying to disguise a QTA suit as an APA action to circumvent the QTA’s “Indian lands” exception. Rather, he is not bringing a QTA suit at all. He asserts merely that the Secretary’s decision to take land into trust violates a federal statute—a garden-variety APA claim. See 5 U. S. C. §§ 706(2)(A), (C) (“The reviewing court shall .. . hold unlawful and set aside agency action ... not in accordance with law [or] in excess of statutory jurisdiction [or] authority”). Because that is true—because in then-Assistant Attorney General Scalia’s words, the QTA is “not addressed to the type of grievance which [Patchak] seeks to assert,” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1656, at 28—the QTA’s limitation of remedies has no bearing. The APA’s general waiver of sovereign immunity instead applies.
The Band and Government, along with the dissent, object to this conclusion on three basic grounds. First, they contend that the QTA speaks more broadly than we have indicated, waiving immunity from suits “to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest.” 28 U. S. C. §2409a(a). That language, the argument goes, encompasses all actions contesting the Government’s legal interest in land, regardless whether the plaintiff claims ownership himself. See Brief for Federal Parties 19-20; Reply Brief for Tribal Petitioner 4-6; post, at 235 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). The QTA (not the APA) thus becomes the relevant statute after all—as to both its waiver and its “corresponding” reservation of immunity from suits involving Indian lands. Reply Brief for Tribal Petitioner 6.
But the Band and Government can reach that result only by neglecting key words in the relevant provision. That sentence, more fully quoted, reads: “The United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest.” §2409a(a) (emphasis added). And as we have already noted, “this section”—§ 2409a—includes a host of indications that the “civil action” at issue is an ordinary quiet title suit: Just recall the section’s title (“Real property quiet title actions”), and its pleading requirements (the plaintiff “shall set forth with particularity the nature of the right, title, or interest which [he] claims”), and its permission to the Government to remedy an infraction by paying “just compensation.” Read with reference to all these provisions (as well as to the QTA’s contemporaneously enacted jurisdictional and venue sections), the waiver clause rebuts, rather than supports, the Band’s and the Government’s argument: That clause speaks not to any suit in which a plaintiff challenges the Government’s title, but only to an action in which the plaintiff also claims an interest in the property.
The Band and Government next invoke cases holding that “when a statute provides a detailed mechanism for judicial consideration of particular issues at the behest of particular persons,” the statute may “impliedly preclude[]” judicial review “of those issues at the behest of other persons.” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 349 (1984); see United States v. Fausto, 484 U. S. 439, 456 (1988). Here, the Band and Government contend, the QTA’s specific authorization of adverse claimants’ suits creates a negative implication: wow-adverse claimants like Patchak cannot challenge Government ownership of land under any other statute. See Reply Brief for Tribal Petitioner 7-10; Reply Brief for Federal Parties 7-9; see also post, at 230. The QTA, says the Band, thus “preempts [Patchak’s] more general remedies.” Brief for Tribal Petitioner 23 (internal quotation marks omitted).
But we think that argument faulty, and the cited cases inapposite, for the reason already given: Patchak is bringing a different claim, seeking different relief, from the kind the QTA addresses. See supra, at 217-221. To see the point, consider a contrasting example. Suppose the QTA authorized suit only by adverse claimants who could assert a property interest of at least a decade’s duration. Then suppose an adverse claimant failing to meet that requirement (because, say, his claim to title went back only five years) brought suit under a general statute like the APA. We would surely bar that suit, citing the cases the Government and Band rely on; in our imaginary statute, Congress delineated the class of persons who could bring a quiet title suit, and that judgment would preclude others from doing so. But here, once again, Patchak is not bringing a quiet title action at all. He is not claiming to own the property, and he is not demanding that the court transfer the property to him. So to succeed in their argument, the Government and Band must go much further than the cited cases: They must say that in authorizing one person to bring one kind of suit seeking one form of relief, Congress barred another person from bringing another kind of suit seeking another form of relief. Presumably, that contention would extend only to suits involving similar subject matter—i. e., the Government’s ownership of property. But that commonality is not itself sufficient. We have never held, and see no cause to hold here, that some general similarity of subject matter can alone trigger a remedial statute’s preclusive effect.
Last, the Band and Government argue that we should treat Patchak’s suit as we would an adverse claimant’s because they equally implicate the “Indian lands” exception’s policies. According to the Government, allowing challenges to the Secretary’s trust acquisitions would “pose significant barriers to tribes[’] . . . ability to promote investment and economic development on the lands.” Brief for Federal Parties 24. That harm is the same whether or not a plaintiff claims to own the land himself. Indeed, the Band argues that the sole difference in this suit cuts in its direction, because non-adverse claimants like Patchak have “the most remote injuries and indirect interests in the land.” Brief for Tribal Petitioner 13; see Reply Brief for Federal Parties 11-12; see also post, at 228, 234, 236.
That argument is not without force, but it must be addressed to Congress. In the QTA, Congress made a judgment about how far to allow quiet title suits—to a point, but no further. (The “no further” includes not only the “Indian lands” exception, but one for security interests and water rights, as well as a statute of limitations, a bar on jury trials, jurisdictional and venue constraints, and the just compensation option discussed earlier.) Perhaps Congress would— perhaps Congress should—make the identical judgment for the full range of lawsuits pertaining to the Government’s ownership of land. But that is not our call. The Band assumes that plaintiffs like Patchak have a lesser interest than those bringing quiet title actions, and so should be precluded a fortiori. But all we can say is that Patchak has a different interest. Whether it is lesser, as the Band argues, because not based on property rights; whether it is greater because implicating public interests; or whether it is in the end exactly the same—that is for Congress to tell us, not for us to tell Congress. As the matter stands, Congress has not assimilated to quiet title actions all other suits challenging the Government’s ownership of property. And so when a plaintiff like Patchak brings a suit like this one, it falls within the APA’s general waiver of sovereign immunity.
I—l 1—1 )—I
We finally consider the Band’s and the Government’s alternative argument that Patchak cannot bring this action because he lacks prudential standing. This Court has long held that a person suing under the APA must satisfy not only Article Ill’s standing requirements, but an additional test: The interest he asserts must be “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute” that he says was violated. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 153 (1970). Here, Patchak asserts that in taking title to the Bradley Property, the Secretary exceeded her authority under § 465, which authorizes the acquisition of property “for the purpose of providing land for Indians.” And he alleges that this statutory violation will cause him economic, environmental, and aesthetic harm as a nearby property owner. See supra, at 213. The Government and Band argue that the relationship between § 465 and Patchak’s asserted interests is insufficient. That is so, they contend, because the statute focuses on land acquisition, whereas Patchak’s interests relate to the land’s use as a casino. See Brief for Tribal Petitioner 46 (“The Secretary’s decision to put land into trust does not turn on any particular use of the land, gaming or otherwise[,] . . . [and] thus has no impact on [Patchak] or his asserted interests”); Brief for Federal Parties 34 (“[L]and may be taken into trust for a host of purposes that have nothing at all to do with gaming”). We find this argument unpersuasive.
The prudential standing test Patchak must meet “is not meant to be especially demanding.” Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn., 479 U. S. 388, 399 (1987). We apply the test in keeping with Congress’s “evident intent” when enacting the APA “to make agency action presumptively reviewable.” Ibid. We do not require any “indication of congressional purpose to benefit the would-be plaintiff.” Id., at 399-400. And we have always conspicuously included the word “arguably” in the test to indicate that the benefit of any doubt goes to the plaintiff. The test forecloses suit only when a plaintiff’s “interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.” Id., at 399.
Patchak’s suit satisfies that standard, because § 465 has far more to do with land use than the Government and Band acknowledge. Start with what we and others have said about §465’s context and purpose. As the leading treatise on federal Indian law notes, § 465 is “the capstone” of the IRA’s land provisions. F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 15.07[1][a], p. 1010 (2005 ed.) (hereinafter Cohen). And those provisions play a key role in the IRA’s overall effort “to rehabilitate the Indian’s economic life,” Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145, 152 (1973) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Land forms the basis” of that “economic life,” providing the foundation for “tourism, manufacturing, mining, logging, . .. and gaming.” Cohen § 15.01, at 965. Section 465 thus functions as a primary mechanism to foster Indian tribes’ economic development. As the D. C. Circuit explained in the MichGO litigation, the section “provides] lands sufficient to enable Indians to achieve self-support.” Michigan Gambling, 525 F. 3d, at 31 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 542 (1974) (noting the IRA’s economic aspect). So when the Secretary obtains land for Indians under § 465, she does not do so in a vacuum. Rather, she takes title to properties with at least one eye directed toward how tribes will use those lands to support economic development.
The Department’s regulations make this statutory concern with land use crystal clear. Those regulations permit the Secretary to acquire land in trust under § 465 if the “land is necessary to facilitate tribal self-determination, economic development, or Indian housing.” 25 CFR § 151.3(a)(3). And they require the Secretary to consider, in evaluating any acquisition, both “[t]he purposes for which the land will be used” and the “potential conflicts of land use which may arise.” §§ 151.10(c), 151.10(f); see § 151.11(a). For “off-reservation acquisitions” made “for business purposes”—like the Bradley Property—the regulations further provide that the tribe must “provide a plan which specifies the anticipated economic benefits associated with the proposed use.” § 151.11(c). DOI’s regulations thus shoy that the statute’s implementation centrally depends on the projected use of a given property.
The Secretary’s acquisition of the Bradley Property is a ease in point. The Band’s application to the Secretary highlighted its plan to use the land for gaming purposes. See App. 41 (“[TJrust status for this Property is requested in order for the Tribe to acquire property on which it plans to conduct gaming”); id., at 60-61 (“The Tribe intends to . . . renovate the existing . . . building into a gaming facility . . . to offer Class II and/or Class III gaming”). Similarly, DOFs notice of intent to take the land into trust announced that the land would “be used for the purpose of construction and operation of a gaming facility,” which the Department had already determined would meet the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s requirements. 70 Fed. Reg. 25596; 25 U. S. C. §§ 2701-2721. So from start to finish, the decision whether to acquire the Bradley Property under § 465 involved questions of land use.
And because § 465’s implementation encompasses these issues, the interests Patchak raises—at least arguably—fall “within the zone .. . protected or regulated by the statute.” If the Government had violated a statute specifically addressing how federal land can be used, no one would doubt that a neighboring landowner would have prudential standing to bring suit to enforce the statute’s limits. The difference here, as the Government and Band point out, is that §465 specifically addresses only land acquisition. But for the reasons already given, decisions under the statute are closely enough and often enough entwined with considerations of land use to make that difference immaterial. As in this very casé, the Secretary will typically acquire land with its eventual use in mind, after assessing potential conflicts that use might create. See 25 CFR §§ 151.10(c), 151.10(f), 151.11(a). And so neighbors to the use (like Patchak) are reasonable—indeed, predictable—challengers of the Secretary’s decisions: Their interests, whether economic, environmental, or aesthetic, come within § 465⅛ regulatory ambit.
* * *
The QTA’s reservation of sovereign immunity does not bar Patchak’s suit. Neither does the doctrine of prudential standing. We therefore affirm the judgment of the D. C. Circuit, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U. S. C. §§ 2701-2721, an Indian tribe may conduct gaming operations on “Indian lands,” § 2710, which include lands “held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe,” § 2703(4)(B). The application thus requested the Secretary to take the action necessary for the Band to open a casino.
The merits of Patchak’s case are not before this Court. We therefore express no view on whether the Band was “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934, as Carcieri requires. Nor do we consider how that question relates to Patchak’s allegation that the Band was not “federally recognized” at the time. Cf. Carcieri, 555 U. S., at 397-399 (Breyer, J., concurring) (discussing this issue).
According to the dissent, we should look only to the kind of relief a plaintiff seeks, rather than the type of grievance he asserts, in deciding whether another statute bars an APA action. See post, at 232-233 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But the dissent’s test is inconsistent with the one we adopted in Block, which asked whether Congress had particularly dealt with a “claim.” See Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School Lands, 461 U. S. 273, 286, n. 22 (1983). And the dissent’s approach has no obvious limits. Suppose, for example, that Congress passed a statute authorizing a particular form of injunctive relief in a procurement contract suit except when the suit involved a “discretionary function” of a federal employee. Cf. 28 U. S. C. § 2680(a). Under the dissent’s method, that exception would preclude any APA suit seeking that kind of injunctive relief if it involved a discretionary function, no matter what the nature of the claim. That implausible result demonstrates that limitations on relief cannot sensibly be understood apart from the claims to which they attach.
The dissent contends that the QTA omits two other historical requirements for quiet title suits. See post, at 234-235. But many States had abandoned those requirements by the time the QTA was passed. See S. Rep. No. 92-575, p. 6 (1971) (noting “wide differences in State statutory and decisional law” on quiet title suits); Steadman, “Forgive the U. S. Its Trespasses?”: Land Title Disputes With the Sovereign—Present Remedies and Prospective Reforms, 1972 Duke L. J. 15, 48-49, and n. 152 (stating that cases had disputed whether a quiet title plaintiff needed to possess the land); Welch v. Kai, 4 Cal. App. 3d 374, 380-381, 84 Cal. Rptr. 619, 622-623 (1970) (allowing a quiet title action when the plaintiff claimed only an easement); Benson v. Fekete, 424 S. W. 2d 729 (Mo. 1968) (en banc) (same). So Congress in enacting the QTA essentially chose one contemporaneous form of quiet title action.
The legislative history, for those who think it useful, further shows that the QTA addresses quiet title actions, as ordinarily conceived. The Senate Report states that the QTA aimed to alleviate the “[glrave inequity” to private parties “excluded, without benefit of a recourse to the courts, from lands they have reason to believe are rightfully theirs.” S. Rep. No. 92-575, at 1. Similarly, the House Report notes that the history of quiet title actions “goes back to the Courts of England,” and provided as examples “a plaintiff whose title to land was continually being subjected to litigation in the law courts,” and “one who feared that an outstanding deed or other interest might cause a claim to be presented in the future.” H. R. Rep. No. 92-1559, p. 6 (1972). From top to bottom, these reports show that Congress thought itself to be authorizing bread- and-butter quiet title actions, in which a plaintiff asserts a right, title, or interest of his own in disputed land.
In a related vein, the dissent argues that our holding will undermine the QTA’s “Indian lands” exception by allowing adverse claimants to file APA complaints concealing their ownership interests or to recruit third parties to bring suit on their behalf. See post, at 236-238. But we think that concern more imaginary than real. We have trouble conceiving of a plausible APA suit that omits mention of an adverse claimant’s interest in property yet somehow leads to relief recognizing that very interest.
For this reason, the Band’s statement that Patchak is “not an Indian or tribal official seeking land” and does not “claim an interest in advancing tribal development,” Brief for Tribal Petitioner 42, is beside the point. The question is not whether § 465 seeks to benefit Patchak; everyone can agree it does not. The question is instead, as the Band’s and the Government’s main argument acknowledges, whether issues of land use (arguably) fall within § 465’s scope—because if they do, a neighbor complaining about such use may sue to enforce the statute’s limits. See infra this page and 226-227. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the respondent of the case. The respondent is the party being sued or tried and is also known as the appellee. Characterize the respondent as the Court's opinion identifies them.
Identify the respondent by the label given to the party in the opinion or judgment of the Court except where the Reports title a party as the "United States" or as a named state. Textual identification of parties is typically provided prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. The official syllabus, the summary that appears on the title page of the case, may be consulted as well. In describing the parties, the Court employs terminology that places them in the context of the specific lawsuit in which they are involved. For example, "employer" rather than "business" in a suit by an employee; as a "minority," "female," or "minority female" employee rather than "employee" in a suit alleging discrimination by an employer.
Also note that the Court's characterization of the parties applies whether the respondent is actually single entitiy or whether many other persons or legal entities have associated themselves with the lawsuit. That is, the presence of the phrase, et al., following the name of a party does not preclude the Court from characterizing that party as though it were a single entity. Thus, identify a single respondent, regardless of how many legal entities were actually involved. If a state (or one of its subdivisions) is a party, note only that a state is a party, not the state's name. | Who is the respondent of the case? | [
"attorney general of the United States, or his office",
"specified state board or department of education",
"city, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit",
"state commission, board, committee, or authority",
"county government or county governmental unit, except school district",
"court or judicial district",
"state department or agency",
"governmental employee or job applicant",
"female governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority governmental employee or job applicant",
"minority female governmental employee or job applicant",
"not listed among agencies in the first Administrative Action variable",
"retired or former governmental employee",
"U.S. House of Representatives",
"interstate compact",
"judge",
"state legislature, house, or committee",
"local governmental unit other than a county, city, town, township, village, or borough",
"governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact",
"state or U.S. supreme court",
"local school district or board of education",
"U.S. Senate",
"U.S. senator",
"foreign nation or instrumentality",
"state or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate of",
"state college or university",
"United States",
"State",
"person accused, indicted, or suspected of crime",
"advertising business or agency",
"agent, fiduciary, trustee, or executor",
"airplane manufacturer, or manufacturer of parts of airplanes",
"airline",
"distributor, importer, or exporter of alcoholic beverages",
"alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked",
"American Medical Association",
"National Railroad Passenger Corp.",
"amusement establishment, or recreational facility",
"arrested person, or pretrial detainee",
"attorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association",
"author, copyright holder",
"bank, savings and loan, credit union, investment company",
"bankrupt person or business, or business in reorganization",
"establishment serving liquor by the glass, or package liquor store",
"water transportation, stevedore",
"bookstore, newsstand, printer, bindery, purveyor or distributor of books or magazines",
"brewery, distillery",
"broker, stock exchange, investment or securities firm",
"construction industry",
"bus or motorized passenger transportation vehicle",
"business, corporation",
"buyer, purchaser",
"cable TV",
"car dealer",
"person convicted of crime",
"tangible property, other than real estate, including contraband",
"chemical company",
"child, children, including adopted or illegitimate",
"religious organization, institution, or person",
"private club or facility",
"coal company or coal mine operator",
"computer business or manufacturer, hardware or software",
"consumer, consumer organization",
"creditor, including institution appearing as such; e.g., a finance company",
"person allegedly criminally insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial",
"defendant",
"debtor",
"real estate developer",
"disabled person or disability benefit claimant",
"distributor",
"person subject to selective service, including conscientious objector",
"drug manufacturer",
"druggist, pharmacist, pharmacy",
"employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of",
"employer-employee trust agreement, employee health and welfare fund, or multi-employer pension plan",
"electric equipment manufacturer",
"electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company",
"eleemosynary institution or person",
"environmental organization",
"employer. If employer's relations with employees are governed by the nature of the employer's business (e.g., railroad, boat), rather than labor law generally, the more specific designation is used in place of Employer.",
"farmer, farm worker, or farm organization",
"father",
"female employee or job applicant",
"female",
"movie, play, pictorial representation, theatrical production, actor, or exhibitor or distributor of",
"fisherman or fishing company",
"food, meat packing, or processing company, stockyard",
"foreign (non-American) nongovernmental entity",
"franchiser",
"franchisee",
"lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization",
"person who guarantees another's obligations",
"handicapped individual, or organization of devoted to",
"health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor",
"heir, or beneficiary, or person so claiming to be",
"hospital, medical center",
"husband, or ex-husband",
"involuntarily committed mental patient",
"Indian, including Indian tribe or nation",
"insurance company, or surety",
"inventor, patent assigner, trademark owner or holder",
"investor",
"injured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related",
"juvenile",
"government contractor",
"holder of a license or permit, or applicant therefor",
"magazine",
"male",
"medical or Medicaid claimant",
"medical supply or manufacturing co.",
"racial or ethnic minority employee or job applicant",
"minority female employee or job applicant",
"manufacturer",
"management, executive officer, or director, of business entity",
"military personnel, or dependent of, including reservist",
"mining company or miner, excluding coal, oil, or pipeline company",
"mother",
"auto manufacturer",
"newspaper, newsletter, journal of opinion, news service",
"radio and television network, except cable tv",
"nonprofit organization or business",
"nonresident",
"nuclear power plant or facility",
"owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels",
"shareholders to whom a tender offer is made",
"tender offer",
"oil company, or natural gas producer",
"elderly person, or organization dedicated to the elderly",
"out of state noncriminal defendant",
"political action committee",
"parent or parents",
"parking lot or service",
"patient of a health professional",
"telephone, telecommunications, or telegraph company",
"physician, MD or DO, dentist, or medical society",
"public interest organization",
"physically injured person, including wrongful death, who is not an employee",
"pipe line company",
"package, luggage, container",
"political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official",
"indigent, needy, welfare recipient",
"indigent defendant",
"private person",
"prisoner, inmate of penal institution",
"professional organization, business, or person",
"probationer, or parolee",
"protester, demonstrator, picketer or pamphleteer (non-employment related), or non-indigent loiterer",
"public utility",
"publisher, publishing company",
"radio station",
"racial or ethnic minority",
"person or organization protesting racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination",
"racial or ethnic minority student or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"realtor",
"journalist, columnist, member of the news media",
"resident",
"restaurant, food vendor",
"retarded person, or mental incompetent",
"retired or former employee",
"railroad",
"private school, college, or university",
"seller or vendor",
"shipper, including importer and exporter",
"shopping center, mall",
"spouse, or former spouse",
"stockholder, shareholder, or bondholder",
"retail business or outlet",
"student, or applicant for admission to an educational institution",
"taxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only",
"tenant or lessee",
"theater, studio",
"forest products, lumber, or logging company",
"person traveling or wishing to travel abroad, or overseas travel agent",
"trucking company, or motor carrier",
"television station",
"union member",
"unemployed person or unemployment compensation applicant or claimant",
"union, labor organization, or official of",
"veteran",
"voter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)",
"wholesale trade",
"wife, or ex-wife",
"witness, or person under subpoena",
"network",
"slave",
"slave-owner",
"bank of the united states",
"timber company",
"u.s. job applicants or employees",
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"General Land Office of Commissioners",
"Transportation Security Administration",
"Surface Transportation Board",
"U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.",
"Reconstruction Finance Corp.",
"Department or Secretary of Homeland Security",
"Unidentifiable",
"International Entity"
] | [
142
] | sc |
PERKINS v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. et al.
No. 85.
Argued November 27-28, 1951.
Decided March 3, 1952.
Robert N. Gorman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Stanley A. Silversteen.
Luden H. Merder argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief' was Charles G. White.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case calls for an answer to the question whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States precludes Ohio from subjecting a foreign corporation to the jurisdiction of its courts in this action in personam. The corporation has been carrying on in Ohio a continuous and systematic, but limited, part of its general business. Its president, while engaged in doing such business in Ohio, has been served with summons in this proceeding. The cause of action sued upon did not arise in Ohio and does not relate to the corporation’s activities there. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that the Fourteenth Amendment leaves Ohio free to .take or decline jurisdiction over the corporation.
After extended litigation elsewhere petitioner, Idonah Slade Perkins, a nonresident of Ohio, filed two actions in personam in the Court of Common Pleas of Clermont County, Ohio, against the several respondents. Among those sued is the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, here called the mining company. It is styled a “sociedad anónima” under the laws of the Philippine Islands, where it owns and has operated profitable gold and silver mines. In one action petitioner seeks approximately $68,400 in dividends claimed to be due her as a stockholder. In the other she claims $2,500,000 damages largely because of the company’s failure to issue to her certificates for 120,000 shares of its stock.
In each case the trial court sustained a motion to quash the service of summons on the mining company. 99 N. E. 2d 515. The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed that decision, 88 Ohio App. 118, 95 N. E. 2d 5, as did the Supreme Court of Ohio, 155 Ohio St. 116, 98 N. E. 2d 33. The cases were consolidated and we granted certiorari in order to pass upon the conclusion voiced within the eourt below that federal due process required the result there reached. 342 U. S. 808.
We start with the holding of the Supreme Court of Ohio, not contested here, that, under Ohio law, the mining company is to be treated as a foreign corporation. Actual notice of the proceeding was given to the corporation in the instant case through regular service of summons upon its president- while he was in Ohio acting in that capacity. Accordingly, there can be no jurisdictional objection based upon a lack of notice to a responsible representative of the corporation.
The answer to the question of whether the state courts of Ohio are open to a proceeding in personam, against an amply notified foreign corporation, to enforce a cause of action not arising in Ohio and not related to the business or activities of the corporation in that State rests entirely upon the law of Ohio, unless the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compels a decision either way.
The suggestion that federal due process compels the State to open its courts to such a case has no substance.
“Provisions for making foreign corporations subject to service in the State is a matter of legislative discretion, and a failure to provide for such service is not a denial of due process. Still less is it incumbent upon a State in furnishing such process to make the jurisdiction over the foreign corporation wide enough to include the adjudication of transitory actions not arising in the State.” Missouri P. R. Co. v. Clarendon Co., 257 U. S. 533, 535.
Also without merit is the argument that merely because Ohio permits a complainant to maintain a proceeding in personam in its courts against a properly served nonresident natural person to enforce a cause of action which does not arise out of anything done in Ohio, therefore, the Constitution of the United States compels Ohio to provide like relief against a foreign corporation.
A more serious question is presented by the claim that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Ohio from granting such relief against a foreign corporation. The syllabus in the report of the case below, while denying the relief sought, does not indicate whether the Supreme Court of Ohio rested its decision on Ohio law or on the Fourteenth Amendment. The first paragraph of that syllabus is as follows:
“1. The doing of business in this state by a foreign corporation, which has not appointed a statutory agent upon whom service of process against the corporation can be made in this state or otherwise consented to service of summons upon it in actions brought in this state, will not make the corporation subject to service of summons in an action in personam brought in the courts of this state to enforce a cause of action not arising in this state and in no way related to the business or activities of the corporation in this state.” 155 Ohio St. 116, 117, 98 N. E. 2d 33, 34.
If the above statement stood alone, it might mean that the decision rested solely upon the law of Ohio. In support of that possibility we are told that, under the rules and practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, only the syllabus necessarily carries the approval of that court. As we understand the Ohio practice, the syllabus of its Supreme Court constitutes the official opinion of that court but it must be read in the light of the facts and issues of the case.
The only opinion accompanying the syllabus of the court below places the concurrence of its author unequivocally upon the ground that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the Ohio courts from exercising jurisdiction over the respondent corporation in this proceeding. That opinion is an official part of the report of the case. The. report, however, does not disclose to what extent, if any, the other members of the court may have shared the view expressed in that opinion. Accordingly, for us to allow the judgment to stand as it is would risk an affirmance of a decision which might have been decided differently if the court below had felt free, under our decisions, to do so.
The cases primarily relied on by the author of the opinion accompanying the syllabus below are Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, and Simon v. Southern R. Co., 236 U. S. 115. Unlike the case at bar, no actual notice of the proceedings was received in those cases by a responsible representative of the foreign corporation. In each case, the public official who was served with process in an attempt to bind the foreign corporation was held' to lack the necessary authority to accept service so as to bind it in a proceeding to enforce a cause of action arising outside of the state of the forum. See 204 U. S. at 22-23, and 236 U. S. at 130. The necessary result was a finding of inadequate service in each case and .a conclusion that the foreign corporation was not bound by. it. The same would be true today in a like proceeding where the only service had and the only notice given was that directed to a public official who had no authority, by statute or otherwise, to accept it in that kind of a proceeding. At the time of rendering the above decisions this Court was aided, in reaching its conclusion as to the limited scope of the statutory authority of the public officials, by this Court’s conception that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment precluded a state from giving its public officials authority to accept service in terms broad enough to bind 3 foreign corporation in proceedings against it to enforce an obligation arising outside of the state of the forum. That conception now has been modified by the rationale adopted in later decisions and particularly in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310.
Today if an authorized representative of a foreign corporation be physically present in the state of the forum and be there engaged in activities appropriate to accepting service or receiving notice on its behalf, we recognize that there is no unfairness in subjecting that corporation to the jurisdiction of the courts of that state through such service of process upon that representative. -This has been squarely held to be so in a proceeding in personam against such a corporation, at least in relation to a cause of action arising out of the corporation’s activities within the state of the forum.
The essence of the issue here, at the constitutional level, is a like one of general fairness to the corporation. Appropriate tests for that are discussed in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 317-320; The amount and kind of activities which must be carried on by the foreign corporation in the state of the forum, so as to make it reasonable and just to subject the corporation to the jurisdiction of that state are to be determined in each case. The corporate activities of a foreign corporation which, under state statute, make it nécessary for it to secure a license and to designate a statutory agent upon whom process may be served provide a-helpful but not a conclusive test. For example, the state of the forum may by statute require a foreign mining corporation to secure a license in order lawfully to carry on there such functional intrastate operations as those of mining or refining ore. On the other hand, if the same corporation carries on, in that state, other continuous and systematic corporate activities as it did here — consisting of directors’ meetings, business correspondence, banking, stock transfers, payment of salaries, purchasing of machinery, etc. — those activities are enough to make it fair and reasonable to subject that corporation to proceedings in personam in that state, at least insofar as the proceedings in personam seek to enforce causes of action relating to those very activities or to other activities of the corporation within the state.
The instant case takes us one step further to a pror ceeding in personam to enforce a cause of action not arising out of the corporation’s activities in the state of the forum. Using the tests mentioned above we find no requirement of federal due process that either prohibits Ohio from opening its courts to the cause of action here presented or compels Ohio to do so. This conforms to the realistic reasoning in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 318-319:
“. . . there have been instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a state were thought so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on cause's of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities. See Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 255 U. S. 565; Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N. Y. 259, 115 N. E. 915; cf. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Alexander, supra [227 U. S. 218].
“. . .. some of the decisions holding the corporation. amenable to suit have been supported by resort to the legal fiction that it has given its consent to service and suit, consent being implied from its presence in the state through the acts of its authorized agents. Lafayette Insurance Co. v. French, 18 How. 404, 407; St. Clair v. Cox, supra [106 U. S. 350], 356; Commercial Mutual Co. v. Davis, supra [213 U. S. 245], 254; Washington v. Superior Court, 289 U. S. 361, 364-365. But more realistically it may be said that those authorized acts were of such a nature as to justify the fiction. Smolik v. Philadelphia & Reading Co., 222 F. 148, 151. Henderson, The Position of Foreign Corporations in American Constitutional Law, 94-95.
. . Whether due process is satisfied must depend rather upon the quality and nature of the activity in relation to the fair and orderly administration of the laws which it was the purpose of the due process clause to insure. That clause does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations. Cf. Pennoyer v. Neff, supra [95 U. S. 714]; Minnesota Commercial Assn. v. Benn, 261 U. S. 140.”
It remains only to consider, in more detail, the issue of whether, as a matter of federal due process, the business dene in Ohio by the respondent mining company was sufficiently substantial and of such a nature- as to permit Ohio to entertain a cause of action against a foreign corporation, where the cause of action arose from activities entirely distinct from its activities in Ohio. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 318.
The Ohio Court of Appeals summarized the evidence on the subject. 88 Ohio App. at 119-125, 95 N. E. 2d at 6-9. From that summary the following facts are substantially beyond controversy: The company’s mining properties were in the Philippine Islands. Its operations there were completely halted during the occupation of the Islands by the Japanese. During that interim the president, who was also the general manager and principal stockholder o.f the company, returned to his home in Clermont County, Ohio. There, he maintained an office in which he conducted his personal affairs and did many things on behalf of the company. He. kept there office files of the company. He carried on there correspondence relating to the business of the company and to its employees. He drew and distributed there salary checks on behalf of the company, both in his own favor as president and in favor of two company secretaries who worked there with him. He used and maintained in Clermont County, Ohio, two active bank accounts carrying substantial balances of company funds. A bank in Hamilton County, Ohio, acted as transfer agent for the stock of the company. Several directors’ meetings were held at his office or home in Clermont County. From that office he supervised policies dealing with the rehabilitation of the corporation’s properties in the Philippines and he dispatched funds to cover purchases of machinery for such rehabilitation. Thus he carried on in Ohio a continuous and systematic supervision of the necessarily limited wartime activities of the company. He there discharged his duties as president and general manager, both during the occupation of the company’s properties by. the Japanese and immediately thereafter. While no mining properties in Ohio were owned or operated by the company, many of its wartime activities were directed from Ohio and were being given the personal attention of its president in that State at the time he was served with summons. Consideration of the circumstances which, under the law of Ohio, ultimately, will determine whether the courts of that State will choose to take jurisdiction over the corporation is reserved for the courts of that State. Without reaching that issue of state policy, we conclude that, under the circumstances above recited, it would not violate federal due process for Ohio either to take or decline jurisdiction of the corporation in this proceeding. This relieves the Ohio courts of the restriction relied upon in the opinion accompanying the syllabus below and which may have influenced the judgment of the court below.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is vacated and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings in the light of this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.
See Perkins v. Perkins, 57 Phil. R. 205; Harden v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 58 Phil. R. 141; Perkins v. Guaranty Trust Co., 274 N. Y. 250, 8 N. E. 2d 849; Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Min ing Co., 55 Cal App. 2d 720, 132 P. 2d 70, rehearing denied, 55 Cal. App. 2d 774, 132 P. 2d 102, cert. denied, 319 U. S. 774; 60 Cal. App. 2d 845, 141 P. 2d 19, cert. denied, 320 U. S. 803, 815; Perkins v. First National Bank of Cincinnati (Ct. of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio), 37 Ohio Op. 162, 79 N. E. 2d 159.
Ohio requires a foreign corporation to secure a license to transact “business” in that State, Throckmorton’s Ohio Code, 1940, § 8625-4, and to appoint a “designated agent” upon whom process may be served, §§ 8625-2, 8625-5. The mining company has neither secured such a license nor-designated such an agent. While this may make it subject to penalties and handicaps, this does not prevent it from transacting business or being sued. § 8625-25. If it has a-“managing agent” in Ohio, service may be made upon him. § 11290. Such service is a permissive alternative to service on the • corporation through its president or other chief officer. § 11288. Lively v. Picton, 218 F. 401, 406-407 (C. A. 6th Cir.). The evidence as to the business activities of the corporation in Ohio is summarized by the Ohio Court of Appeals. 88 Ohio App. 118, 119-125, 95 N. E. 2d 5, 6-9. That court held that such activities did not constitute the transaction of business referred to in the Code. In its syllabus, however, the'Supreme- Court-of Ohio, without passing upon the sufficiency of such acts for the above statutory purpose, and without defining its use of the term,, affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint and assumed that what the corporation had done in Ohio constituted “doing business” to an extent sufficient to be recognized in reaching its decision.
In 1858 the Supreme Court of Ohio promulgated the following rule:
“A syllabus of the points decided by the Court in each case, shall be stated, in writing, by the Judge assigned to deliver the opinion of the Court, which shall be confined to the points of law, arising from the facts of the case, that have been determined by'the Court. And the syllabus shall be submitted to the Judges concurring therein, for revisal, before publication thereof; and’it shall be inserted in the book of reports without alteration, unless by the consent of the Judges concurring therein.” 5 Ohio St. vii.
This policy has been recognized by statute. Bates Ohio R. S. § 427, as amended, 103 Ohio Laws 1913, § 1483, and 108 Ohio Laws 1919, § 1483. It appears now in Throckmorton’s Ohio Code, 1940, § 1483, as follows:
“Whenever it has been thus decided to report a case for publication the syllabus thereof shall be prepared by the judge delivering the opinion, ,,and approved by a majority of the members of the court; and the report may be per curiam, or if an opinion be reported, the same shall be written in as brief and concise form as may be consistent with a clear presentation of the law of the case. . . . Only such cases as are hereafter reported in accordance with the provisions of this section shall be recqgnized by and receive the official sanction of any court within the state.”
There are many references to this practice, both in the syllabi and opinions written for the Supreme Court of Ohio. Typical of these is the following:
“It has long been the rule of this court that the syllabus contains the law of the’case. It is the only part of the opinion requiring the approval of all the members concurring in the judgment. Where the judge writing an opinion discusses matters or gives expression to his views on questions not contained in the syllabus, it is merely the personal opinion of that judge.” State ex rel. Donahey v. Edmondson, 89 Ohio St. 93, 107-108, 105 N. E. 269, 273.
See also, Williamson Heater Co. v. Radich, 128 Ohio St. 124, 190 N. E. 403; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Baillie, 112 Ohio St. 567, 148 N. E. 233. A syllabus must be read in the light of the facts in the case, even where brought out in the accompanying opinion rather than in the syllabus itself. See Williamson Heater Co. v. Radich, supra; Perkins v. Bright, 109 Ohio St. 14, 19-20, 141 N. E. 689, 690-691; In re Poage, 87 Ohio St. 72, 82-83, 100 N. E. 125; 127-128.
“However, the doing of business in a state by a foreign corporation, which has not appointed a statutory agent upon whom service of process against the corporation can be made in that state or otherwise consented to service of summons upon it in actions brought in that state, will not make the corporation subject to service of summons in an action in personam brought in the courts of that state to enforce a cause of action in no way related to the business or activities of the corporation in that state. Old Wayne Mutual Life Assn. of Indianapolis v. McDonough, 204 U. S., 8, 22, 23, 51 L. Ed., 345, 27 S. Ct., 236; Simon v. Southern Ry. Co., 236 U. S., 115, 129, 130 and 132, 59 L. Ed., 492, 35 S. Ct., 255. See, also, Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S., 93, 95 and 96, 61 L. Ed., 610, 37 S. Ct., 344; Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Construction Co., 257 U. S., 213, 215 and 216, 66 L. Ed., 201, 42 S. Ct., 84; International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S., 310, 319 and 320, 90 L. Ed., 95, 66 S. Ct., 154.
“An examination of the opinions of the Supreme Court of the. United States in the foregoing cases will clearly disclose that service of summons in such an instance would be void as wanting in due process of law.” 155 Ohio St. 116, 119-120, 98 N. E. 2d 33, 35.
“. . . The obligation which is here sued upon arose out of those very activities. It is evident that these operations establish sufficient contacts or ties with the state of the forum to make it reasonable and just, according to our traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice, to permit the state to enforce the obligations which appellant has incurred there. Hence we cannot say that the maintenance of the present suit in the State of Washington involves an unreasonable or undue procedure.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 320.
This citation does not disclose the significance of this decision but light is thrown upon it by the opinions of the state court below. Reynolds v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co., 224 Mass. 379, 113 N. E. 413; 228 Mass. 584, 117 N. E. 913. In addition to the cases cited in the text see Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100; Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v. Gold Issue Mining Co., 243 U. S. 93 (statutory agent appointed); Philadelphia & Reading R. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264, 268-269 (question left open).
For like procedure followed, under somewhat comparable circumstances gee State Tax Comm’n v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. If the case arose under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, note the source as "United States Supreme Court". If the case arose in a state court, note the source as "State Supreme Court", "State Appellate Court", or "State Trial Court". Do not code the name of the state. | What is the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed? | [
"U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals",
"U.S. Court of International Trade",
"U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims",
"U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces",
"U.S. Court of Military Review",
"U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals",
"U.S. Customs Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit",
"U.S. Tax Court",
"Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals",
"U.S. Court for China",
"U.S. Consular Courts",
"U.S. Commerce Court",
"Territorial Supreme Court",
"Territorial Appellate Court",
"Territorial Trial Court",
"Emergency Court of Appeals",
"Supreme Court of the District of Columbia",
"Bankruptcy Court",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit",
"U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)",
"Alabama Middle U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Northern U.S. District Court",
"Alabama Southern U.S. District Court",
"Alaska U.S. District Court",
"Arizona U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas Western U.S. District Court",
"California Central U.S. District Court",
"California Eastern U.S. District Court",
"California Northern U.S. District Court",
"California Southern U.S. District Court",
"Colorado U.S. District Court",
"Connecticut U.S. District Court",
"Delaware U.S. District Court",
"District Of Columbia U.S. District Court",
"Florida Middle U.S. District Court",
"Florida Northern U.S. District Court",
"Florida Southern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Middle U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Northern U.S. District Court",
"Georgia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Guam U.S. District Court",
"Hawaii U.S. District Court",
"Idaho U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Central U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Northern U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Southern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Northern U.S. District Court",
"Indiana Southern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Northern U.S. District Court",
"Iowa Southern U.S. District Court",
"Kansas U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky Western U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana Western U.S. District Court",
"Maine U.S. District Court",
"Maryland U.S. District Court",
"Massachusetts U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Michigan Western U.S. District Court",
"Minnesota U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Missouri Western U.S. District Court",
"Montana U.S. District Court",
"Nebraska U.S. District Court",
"Nevada U.S. District Court",
"New Hampshire U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"New Mexico U.S. District Court",
"New York Eastern U.S. District Court",
"New York Northern U.S. District Court",
"New York Southern U.S. District Court",
"New York Western U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"North Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Northern U.S. District Court",
"Ohio Southern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court",
"Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court",
"Oregon U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court",
"Puerto Rico U.S. District Court",
"Rhode Island U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina U.S. District Court",
"South Dakota U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee Western U.S. District Court",
"Texas Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Northern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Southern U.S. District Court",
"Texas Western U.S. District Court",
"Utah U.S. District Court",
"Vermont U.S. District Court",
"Virgin Islands U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Virginia Western U.S. District Court",
"Washington Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Washington Western U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court",
"Wyoming U.S. District Court",
"Louisiana U.S. District Court",
"Washington U.S. District Court",
"West Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court",
"South Carolina Western U.S. District Court",
"Alabama U.S. District Court",
"U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone",
"Georgia U.S. District Court",
"Illinois U.S. District Court",
"Indiana U.S. District Court",
"Iowa U.S. District Court",
"Michigan U.S. District Court",
"Mississippi U.S. District Court",
"Missouri U.S. District Court",
"New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)",
"New York U.S. District Court",
"North Carolina U.S. District Court",
"Ohio U.S. District Court",
"Pennsylvania U.S. District Court",
"Tennessee U.S. District Court",
"Texas U.S. District Court",
"Virginia U.S. District Court",
"Norfolk U.S. District Court",
"Wisconsin U.S. District Court",
"Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court",
"New Jersey U.S. District Court",
"California U.S. District Court",
"Florida U.S. District Court",
"Arkansas U.S. District Court",
"District of Orleans U.S. District Court",
"State Supreme Court",
"State Appellate Court",
"State Trial Court",
"Eastern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Middle Circuit (of the United States)",
"Southern Circuit (of the United States)",
"Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama",
"Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas",
"California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California",
"Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut",
"Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware",
"Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida",
"Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia",
"Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois",
"Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana",
"Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa",
"Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas",
"Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky",
"Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana",
"Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine",
"Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland",
"Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts",
"Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan",
"Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota",
"Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi",
"Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri",
"Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada",
"New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire",
"New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey",
"New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York",
"North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina",
"Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio",
"Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon",
"Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania",
"Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island",
"South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina",
"Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee",
"Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas",
"Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont",
"Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia",
"West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia",
"Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin",
"Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming",
"Circuit Court of the District of Columbia",
"Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska",
"Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado",
"Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington",
"Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho",
"Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana",
"Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah",
"South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota",
"North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota",
"Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma",
"Court of Private Land Claims"
] | [
157
] | sc |
CLINGMAN, SECRETARY, OKLAHOMA STATE ELECTION BOARD, et al. v. BEAVER et al.
No. 04-37.
Argued January 19, 2005
Decided May 23, 2005
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court except as to Part II-A, concluding that Oklahoma’s semielosed primary system does not violate the right to freedom of association. Any burden it imposes is minor and justified by legitimate state -interests. Pp. 586-587, 591-598.
(a) The First Amendment protects citizens’ right “to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views.” California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U. S. 567, 574. Regulations imposing severe burdens on associational rights must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, but when they impose lesser burdens, “a State’s important regulatory interests will usually be enough to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.” Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351, 358. In Tash-jian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U. S. 208, 224, n. 13, the Court left open the question whether a State may prevent a political party from inviting registered voters of other parties to vote in its primary. Pp. 586-587.
(b) Oklahoma’s system does not severely burden assoeiational rights. The Court disagrees with respondents’ argument that the burden Oklahoma imposes is no less severe than the burden at issue in Tashjian, and thus the Court must apply strict scrutiny as it did in Tashjian. Tashjian applied strict scrutiny without carefully examining the burden on assoeiational rights. Not every electoral law burdening assoeiational rights is subject to strict scrutiny, which is appropriate only if the burden is severe, e. g., Jones, supra, at 582. Requiring voters to register with a party before participating in its primary minimally burdens voters’ assoeiational rights. Moreover, Tashjian is distinguishable. Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary imposes an even less substantial burden than did the Connecticut closed primary at issue in Tashjian. Unlike that law, Oklahoma’s system does not require Independent voters to affiliate publicly with a party to vote in its primary, 479 U. S., at 216, n. 7. Although, like the earlier law, Oklahoma’s statute does not allow parties to “broaden opportunities for joining... by their own act,” but requires “intervening action by potential voters,” ibid., this burden is not severe, since many electoral regulations require that voters take some action to participate in the primary process. Such minor barriers between voter and party do not compel strict scrutiny. See Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134, 143. To deem ordinary and widespread burdens like these severe would subject virtually every electoral regulation to strict scrutiny, hamper the ability of States to run efficient and equitable elections, and compel federal courts to rewrite state electoral codes. The Constitution does not require that result. Pp. 591-593.
(e) Oklahoma’s primary advances a number of regulatory interests this Court recognizes as important: It “preserves] [political] parties as viable and identifiable interest groups,” Nader v. Schaffer, 417 F. Supp. 837, 845 (Conn.), aff’d, 429 U. S. 989; enhances parties’ electioneering and party-building efforts, 417 F. Supp., at 848; and guards against party raiding and “sore loser” candidacies by spurned primary contenders, Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 735. Pp. 593-597.
(d) The -Court declines to consider respondents’ expansion of their challenge to include several of Oklahoma’s ballot access and voter registration laws. Those claims were neither raised nor decided below, see, e. g., Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157,168— 169, and respondents have pointed to no unusual circumstances warranting their consideration now, see Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U. S. 638, 645-646. Pp. 597-598.
Justice Thomas, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy, concluded in Part II-A that a voter unwilling to disaffiliate from another party in order to vote in the LPO’s primary forms little “association” with the LPO — nor the LPO with him. See Tashjian, supra, at 235. But even if Oklahoma’s system burdens an associational right, the burden is less severe than others this Court has upheld as constitutional. The reasons underpinning Timmons, supra, show that Oklahoma’s system burdens the LPO only minimally. As in Timmons, Oklahoma’s law does not regulate the LPO’s internal processes, its authority to exclude unwanted members, or its capacity to communicate with the public. And just as in Timmons, in which a Minnesota law conditioned a party’s ability to nominate the candidate of its choice on the candidate’s willingness to disaffiliate from another party, Oklahoma conditions a party’s ability to welcome a voter into its primary on the voter’s willingness to dissociate from his current party of choice. If a party may be prevented from associating with its desired standard bearer because he refuses to disaffiliate from another party, it may also be prevented from associating with a voter who refuses to do the same. Oklahoma’s system imposes an even slighter burden on voters than on the LPO. Disaffiliation is not difficult: Other parties’ registered members who wish to vote in the LPO primary simply need to file a form changing their registration. Voters are not “locked in” to an unwanted party affiliation, see Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U. S. 51, 60-61, because with only nominal effort they are free to vote in the LPO primary. Pp. 587-591.
Justice O’Connor, joined by Justice Breyer except as to Part III, agreed with most of the Court’s reasoning, but wrote separately to emphasize two points. First, the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma (LPO) and voters registered with another party have constitutionally cognizable interests in associating with one another through the LPO’s primary, and these interests should not be minimized to dispose of this case. Second, while the Court is correct that only Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary law is properly under review, that standing alone it imposes only a modest, nondiscriminatory burden on respondents’ associational rights, and that this burden is justified by the State’s legitimate regulatory interests, there are some grounds for concern that other Oklahoma laws governing party recognition and changes in party affiliation may unreasonably restrict voters’ ability to participate in the LPO’s primary. A realistic assessment of regulatory burdens on associational rights would, in an appropriate case, require examination of the cumulative effects of the State’s overall primary scheme; and any finding of a more severe burden would trigger more probing review of the State’s justifications. Pp. 598-608.
Thomas, J., delivered an opinion, which was for the Court except as to Part II-A. Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Kennedy, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and O’Connor and Breyer, JJ., joined except as to Part II-A. O’Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Breyer, J., joined except as to Part III, post, p. 598. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined, and in which Souter, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III, post, p. 608.
Wellon B. Poe, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was W. A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General.
James C. Linger argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the State of South Dakota et al. by Lawrence E. Long, Attorney General of South Dakota, Craig M. Eichstadt, Deputy Attorney General, and Gene C. Schaerr, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: J. Joseph Curran, Jr.,, of Maryland, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Kelly A. Ayotte of New Hampshire, Patricia A Madrid of New Mexico, Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Mark Shurtleff of Utah, and Darrell V. Mc-Graw, Jr., of West Virginia.
A brief of amicus curiae urging affirmance was filed for the Coalition for Free and Open Elections by Richard Shepard.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II-A.
Oklahoma has a semiclosed primary system, in which a political party may invite only its own party members and voters registered as Independents to vote in the party’s primary. The Court of Appeals held that this system violates the right to freedom of association of the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma (LPO) and several Oklahomans who are registered members of the Republican and Democratic Parties. We hold that it does not.
I
Oklahoma’s election laws provide that only registered members of a political party may vote in the party’s primary, see Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 26, § 1-104(A) (West 1997), unless the party opens its primary to registered Independents as well, see § 1-104(B)(1). In May 2000, the LPO notified the secretary of the Oklahoma State Election Board that it wanted to open its upcoming primary to all registered Oklahoma voters, without regard to their party affiliation. See § 1-104(B)(4) (requiring notice when a party opens its primary to Independents). Pursuant to § 1-104, the secretary agreed as to Independent voters, but not as to voters registered with other political parties. The LPO and several Republican and Democratic voters then sued for declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging that Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary law unconstitutionally burdens their First Amendment right to freedom of political association. App. 20.
After a hearing, the District Court declined to enjoin Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary law for the 2000 primaries. After a 2-day bench trial following the primary election, the District Court found that Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary system did not severely burden respondents’ associational rights. Further, it found that any burden imposed by the system was justified by Oklahoma’s asserted interest in “preserving the political parties as viable and identifiable interest groups, [and] insuring that the results of a primary election . . . accurately reflect the voting of the party members.” Memorandum Opinion, Case No. CIV-00-1071-F (WD Okla., Jan. 24,2003), App. to Pet. for Cert. 55-56 (hereinafter Memorandum Opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). The District Court therefore upheld the semiclosed primary statute as constitutional. Id., at 72-73.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court. The Court of Appeals concluded that the State’s semiclosed primary statute imposed a severe burden on respondents’ associational rights, and thus was constitutional only if the statute was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. 363 F. 3d 1048, 1057-1058 (2004). Finding none of Oklahoma’s interests compelling, the Court of Appeals enjoined Oklahoma from using its semiclosed primary law. Id., at 1060-1061. Because the Court of Appeals’ decision not only prohibits Oklahoma from using its primary system but also casts doubt on the semiclosed primary laws of 23 other States, we granted certiorari. 542 U. S. 965 (2004).
t — I I — (
The Constitution grants States broad power to prescribe the ‘Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,’ Art. I, §4, cl. 1, which power is matched by state control over the election process for state offices.” Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U. S. 208, 217 (1986); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351, 358 (1997) (quoting Tashjian). We have held that the First Amendment, among other things, protects the right of citizens “to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views.” California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U. S. 567, 574 (2000). Regulations that impose severe burdens on associational rights must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Timmons, 520 U. S., at 358. However, when regulations impose lesser burdens, “a State’s important regulatory interests will usually be enough to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted).
In Tashjian, this Court struck down, as inconsistent with the First Amendment, a closed primary system that prevented a political party from inviting Independent voters to vote in the party’s primary. 479 U. S., at 225. This case presents a question that Tashjian left open: whether a State may prevent a political party from inviting registered voters of other parties to vote in its primary. Id., at 224, n. 13. As Tashjian acknowledged, opening a party’s primary “to all voters, including members of other parties, . . . raise[s] a different combination of considerations.” Ibid. We are persuaded that any burden Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary imposes is minor and justified by legitimate state interests.
A
At the outset, we note that Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary system is unlike other laws this Court has held to infringe associational rights. Oklahoma has not sought through its electoral system to discover the names of the LPO’s members, see NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 451 (1958); to interfere with the LPO by restricting activities central to its purpose, see NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 895 (1982); NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 423-426 (1963); to disqualify the LPO from public benefits or privileges, see Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U. S. 589, 595-596 (1967); or to compel the LPO’s association with unwanted members or voters, see Jones, supra, at 577. The LPO is free to canvass the electorate, enroll or exclude potential members, nominate the candidate of its choice, and engage in the same electoral activities as every other political party in Oklahoma. Oklahoma merely prohibits the LPO from leaving the selection of its candidates to people who are members of another political party. Nothing in § 1-104 prevents members of other parties from switching their registration to the LPO or to Independent status. The question is whether the Constitution requires that voters who are registered in other parties be allowed to vote in the LPO’s primary.
In other words, the Republican and Democratic voters who have brought this action do not want to associate with the LPO, at least not in any formal sense. They wish to remain registered with the Republican, Democratic, or Reform parties, and yet to assist in selecting the Libertarian Party’s candidates for the general election. Their interest is in casting a vote for a Libertarian candidate in a particular primary election, rather than in banding together with fellow citizens committed to the LPO’s political goals and ideas. See Jones, supra, at 573-574, n. 5 (“As for the associational ‘interest’ in selecting the candidate of a group to which one does not belong, that falls far short of a constitutional right, if indeed it can even fairly be characterized as an interest”). And the LPO is happy to have their votes, if not their membership on the party rolls.
However, a voter who is unwilling to disaffiliate from another party to vote in the LPO’s primary forms little “association” with the LPO — nor the LPO with him. See Tashjian, supra, at 235 (Scalia, J., dissenting). That same voter might wish to participate in numerous party primaries, or cast ballots for several candidates, in any given race. The issue is not “dual associations,” post, at 601 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), but seemingly boundless ones. “If the concept of freedom of association is extended” to a voter’s every desire at the ballot box, “it ceases to be of any analytic use.” Tashjian, supra, at 235 (Scalia, J., dissenting); cf. Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U. S. 107, 130 (1981) (Powell, J., dissenting) (“[Not] every conflict between state law and party rules concerning participation in the nomination process creates a burden on associational rights”).
But even if Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary system burdens an associational right, the burden is less severe than others this Court has upheld as constitutional. For instance, in Timmons, we considered a Minnesota election law prohibiting multiparty, or “fusion,” candidacies in which a candidate appears on the ballot as the nominee of more than one party. 520 U. S., at 353-354. Minnesota’s law prevented the New Party, a minor party under state law, from putting forward the same candidate as a major party. The New Party challenged the law as unconstitutionally burdening its associational rights. Id., at 354-355. This Court concluded that the burdens imposed by Minnesota’s law— “though not trivial — [were] not severe.” Id., at 363.
The burdens were not severe because the New Party and its members remained free to govern themselves internally and to communicate with the public as they wished. Ibid. Minnesota had neither regulated the New Party’s internal decisionmaking process, nor compelled it to associate with voters of any political persuasion, see Jones, 530 U. S., at 577. The New Party and its members simply could not nominate as their candidate any of “those few individuals who both have already agreed to be another party’s candidate and also, if forced to choose, themselves prefer that other party.” Timmons, supra, at 363.
The same reasons underpinning our decision in Timmons show that Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary system burdens the LPO only minimally. As in Timmons, Oklahoma’s law does not regulate the LPO’s internal processes, its authority to exclude unwanted members, or its capacity to communicate with the public. And just as in Timmons, in which Minnesota conditioned the party’s ability to nominate the candidate of its choice on the candidate’s willingness to disaffiliate from another political party, Oklahoma conditions the party’s ability to welcome a voter into its primary on the voter’s willingness to dissociate from his current party of choice. If anything, it is “[t]he moment of choosing the party’s nominee” that matters far more, Jones, 530 U. S., at 575, for that is “ ‘the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political power in the community,’ ” ibid, (quoting Tashjian, 479 U. S., at 216). If a party may be prevented from associating with the candidate of its choice — its desired “ ‘standard bearer,’ ” Timmons, supra, at 359; Jones, supra, at 575 — because that candidate refuses to disaffiliate from another political party, a party may also be prevented from associating with a voter who refuses to do the same.
Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary system imposes an even slighter burden on voters than on the LPO. Disaffiliation is not difficult: In general, “anyone can ‘join’ a political party merely by asking for the appropriate ballot at the appropriate time or (at most) by registering within a state-defined reasonable period of time before an election.” Jones, supra, at 596 (Stevens, J., dissenting). In Oklahoma, registered members of the Republican, Democratic, and Reform Parties who wish to vote in the LPO primary simply need to file a form with the county election board secretary to change their registration. See Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 26, §4-119 (West Supp. 2005). Voters are not “locked in” to an unwanted party affiliation, see Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U. S. 51, 60-61 (1973), because with only nominal effort they are free to vote in the LPO primary. For this reason, too, the registration requirement does not unduly hinder the LPO from associating with members of other parties. To attract members of other parties, the LPO need only persuade voters to make the minimal effort necessary to switch parties.
B
Respondents argue that this case is no different from Tashjian. According to respondents, the burden imposed by Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary system is no less severe than the burden at issue in Tashjian, and hence we must apply strict scrutiny as we did in Tashjian. We disagree. At issue in Tashjian was a Connecticut election statute that required voters to register with a political party before participating in its primary. 479 U. S., at 210-211. The State’s Republican Party, having adopted a rule that allowed Independent voters to participate in its primary, contended that Connecticut’s closed primary infringed its right to associate with Independent voters. Ibid. Applying strict scrutiny, this Court found that the interests Connecticut advanced to justify its ban were not compelling, and thus that the State could not constitutionally prevent the Republican Party from inviting into its primary willing Independent voters. Id., at 217-225.
Respondents’ reliance on Tashjian is unavailing. As an initial matter, Tashjian applied strict scrutiny with little discussion of the magnitude of the burdens imposed by Connecticut’s closed primary on parties’ and voters’ associational rights. Post, at 605 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). But not every electoral law that burdens associational rights is subject to strict scrutiny. See, e. g., Nader v. Schaffer, 417 F. Supp. 837, 849 (Conn.) (“There must be more than a minimal infringement on the rights to vote and of association . . . before strict judicial review is warranted”), aff’d, 429 U. S. 989 (1976). Instead, as our cases since Tashjian have clarified, strict scrutiny is appropriate only if the burden is severe. Jones, supra, at 582; Timmons, 520 U. S., at 358. In Tashjian itself, Independent voters could join the Connecticut Republican Party as late as the day before the primary. 479 U. S., at 219. As explained above, supra, at 590-591, requiring voters to register with a party prior to participating in the party’s primary minimally burdens voters’ associational rights.
Nevertheless, Tashjian is distinguishable. Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary imposes an even less substantial burden than did the Connecticut closed primary at issue in Tashjian. In Tashjian, this Court identified two ways in which Connecticut’s closed primary limited citizens’ freedom of political association. The first and most important was that it required Independent voters to affiliate publicly with a party to vote in its primary. 479 U. S., at 216, n. 7. That is not true in this case. At issue here are voters who have already affiliated publicly with one of Oklahoma’s political parties. These voters need not register as Libertarians to vote in the LPO’s primary; they need only declare themselves Independents, which would leave them free to participate in any party primary that is open to registered Independents. See Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 26, § 1-104(B)(1) (West 1997).
The second and less important burden imposed by Connecticut’s closed primary system was that political parties could not “broaden opportunities for joining ... by their own act, without any intervening action by potential voters.” Tashjian, 479 U. S., at 216, n. 7. Voters also had to act by registering themselves in a particular party. Ibid. That is equally true of Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary system: Voters must register as Libertarians or Independents to participate in the LPO’s primary. However, Tashjian did not characterize this burden alone as severe, and with good reason. Many electoral regulations, including voter registration generally, require that voters take some action to participate in the primary process. See, e. g., Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752, 760-762 (1973) (upholding requirement that voters change party registration 11 months in advance of the primary election). Election laws invariably “affec[t] — at least to some degree — the individual’s right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 788 (1983).
These minor barriers between voter and party do not compel strict scrutiny. See Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134, 143 (1972). To deem ordinary and widespread burdens like these severe would subject virtually every electoral regulation to strict scrutiny, hamper the ability of States to run efficient and equitable elections, and compel federal courts to rewrite state electoral codes. The Constitution does not require that result, for it is beyond question “that States may, and inevitably must, enact reasonable regulations of parties, elections, and ballots to reduce election- and campaign-related disorder.” Timmons, supra, at 358; Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 730 (1974). Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary system does not severely burden the associational rights of the State’s citizenry.
C
When a state electoral provision places no heavy burden on associational rights, “a State’s important regulatory interests will usually be enough to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.” Timmons, supra, at 358 (internal quotation marks omitted); Anderson, supra, at 788. Here, Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary advances a number of regulatory interests that this Court recognizes as important: It “preserves] [political] parties as viable and identifiable interest groups,” Nader, 417 F. Supp., at 845; enhances parties’ electioneering and party-building efforts, id., at 848; and guards against party raiding and “sore loser” candidacies by spurned primary contenders, Storer, supra, at 735.
First, as Oklahoma asserts, its semiclosed primary “preserves] the political parties as viable and identifiable interest groups, insuring that the results of a primary election, in a broad sense, accurately reflec[t] the voting of the party members.” Amended and Supplemental Trial Brief of Defendants 10, Record Doc. 63 (quoting without attribution Nader, supra, at 845). The LPO wishes to open its primary to registered Republicans and Democrats, who may well vote in numbers that dwarf the roughly 300 registered LPO voters in Oklahoma. See Memorandum Opinion 31-32 (at least 95% of voters in LPO’s 1996 primary were independents, not Libertarians). If the LPO is permitted to open its primary to all registered voters regardless of party affiliation, the candidate who emerges from the LPO primary may be “unconcerned with, if not... hostile to,” the political preferences of the majority of the LPO’s members. Nader, supra, at 846. It does not matter that the LPO is willing to risk the surrender of its identity in exchange for electoral success. Oklahoma’s interest is independent and concerns the integrity of its primary system. The State wants to “avoid primary election outcomes which would tend to confuse or mislead the general voting population to the extent [it] relies on party labels as representative of certain ideologies.” Brief for Petitioners 12 (quoting without attribution Nader, supra, at 845); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 228 (1989).
Moreover, this Court has found that “ ‘[i]n facilitating the effective operation of [a] democratic government, a state might reasonably classify voters or candidates according to political affiliations.’” Nader, supra, at 845-846 (quoting Ray v. Blair, 343 U. S. 214, 226, n. 14 (1952)). But for that classification to mean much, Oklahoma must be allowed to limit voters’ ability to roam among parties’ primaries. The purpose of party registration is to provide “a minimal demonstration by the voter that he has some ‘commitment’ to the party in whose primary he wishes to participate.” Nader, supra, at 847. That commitment is lessened if party members may retain their registration in one party while voting in another party’s primary. Opening the LPO’s primary to all voters not only would render the LPO’s imprimatur an unreliable index of its candidate’s actual political philosophy, but it also “would make registered party affiliations signifi-. cantly less meaningful in the Oklahoma primary election system.” Memorandum Opinion 59. Oklahoma reasonably has concluded that opening the LPO’s primary to all voters regardless of party affiliation would undermine the crucial role of political parties in the primary process. Cf. Jones, 530 U. S., at 574.
Second, Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary system, by retaining the importance of party affiliation, aids in parties’ electioneering and party-building efforts. “It is common experience that direct solicitation of party members — by mail, telephone, or face-to-face contact, and by the candidates themselves or by their active supporters — is part of any primary election campaign.” Nader, supra, at 848. Yet parties’ voter turnout efforts depend in large part on accurate voter registration rolls. See, e. g., Council of Alternative Political Parties v. State Div. of Elections, 344 N. J. Super. 225, 231-232, 781 A. 2d 1041, 1045 (2001) (“It is undisputed that the voter registration lists, with voter affiliation information, .. . provide essential information to the [party state committees] for other campaign and party-building activities, including canvassing and fundraising”).
When voters are no longer required to disaffiliate before participating in other parties? primaries, voter registration rolls cease to be an accurate reflection of voters’ political preferences. And without registration rolls that accurately reflect likely or potential primary voters, parties risk expending precious resources to turn out party members who may have decided to cast their votes elsewhere. See Brief for State of South Dakota et al. as Amici Curiae 20-21. If encouraging citizens to vote is an important state interest, see Jones, supra, at 587 (Kennedy, J., concurring), then Oklahoma is entitled to protect parties’ ability to plan their primaries for a stable group of voters. Tr. of Oral Arg. 26.
Third, Oklahoma has an interest in preventing party raiding, or “the organized switching of blocs of voters from one party to another in order to manipulate the outcome of the other party’s primary election.” Anderson, 460 U. S., at 788-789, n. 9; Jones, supra, at 572. For example, if the outcome of the Democratic Party primary were not in doubt, Democrats might vote in the LPO primary for the candidate most likely to siphon off votes from the Republican candidate in the general election. Or a Democratic primary contender who senses defeat might launch a “sore loser” candidacy by defecting to the LPO primary, taking with him loyal Democratic voters, and thus undermining the Democratic Party in the general election. Storer, 415 U. S., at 735. Oklahoma has an interest in “tempering] the destabilizing effects” of precisely this sort of “party splintering and excessive factionalism.” Timmons, 520 U. S., at 367; cf. Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 109, 144-145 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary system serves that interest by discouraging voters from temporarily defecting from another party to vote in the LPO primary. While the State’s interest will not justify “unreasonably exclusionary restrictions,” Timmons, 520 U. S., at 367, we have “repeatedly upheld reasonable, politically neutral regulations” like Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary law, id., at 369 (internal quotation marks omitted).
I — I HH 1 — <
Beyond their challenge to Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary law, § 1-104, respondents have expanded their challenge before this Court to include other Oklahoma election laws. Respondents contend that several of the State’s ballot access and voter registration laws, taken together, severely burden their associational rights by effectively preventing them from changing their party affiliations in advance of a primary election. Brief for Respondents 15-18 (discussing the joint operation of Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 26, §§ 1-108, 1-109, 1-110, 4-112, and 4-119 (West Supp. 2005)).
Though the LPO has unsuccessfully challenged one of these provisions before, see Rainbow Coalition of Okla. v. Oklahoma State Election Bd., 844 F. 2d 740 (CA10 1988) (rejecting First Amendment challenge by LPO and other political parties to Oklahoma’s ballot access provision, § 1-108 (West 1981 and Supp. 1987)), respondents raise this argument for the first time in their brief on the merits to this Court. Before the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the only associational burden of which respondents complained was that imposed by § 1-104 (West 1997), i. e., the need to disaffiliate from one party in order to vote in another party’s primary. See, e. g., Appellants’ Opening Brief in No. 03-6058 (CA10), pp. 5, 8-10, 30 (challenging only § 1-104 as applied to respondents); Plaintiffs’ Amended Trial Brief 9-25, Record Doc. 65 (same); Amended Complaint 6-9, id., Doc. 23 (same). As a result, there is virtually no evidence in the record on how other electoral regulations operate in tandem with § 1-104, whether these other laws actually burden respondents’ associational rights, and whether these laws advance important or even compelling state interests. We ordinarily do not consider claims neither raised nor decided below, Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 168-169 (2004) (citing Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U. S. 103, 109 (2001) (per curiam)), and respondents have pointed to no unusual circumstances that would warrant considering other portions of Oklahoma’s electoral code this late in the day, see Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U. S. 638, 645-646 (1992). We therefore decline to consider this aspect of their challenge.
* * *
Oklahoma remains free to allow the LPO to invite registered voters of other parties to vote in its primary. But the Constitution leaves that choice to the democratic process, not to the courts. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16-241(A) (West 1996); Cal. Elec. Code Ann. § 13102 (West 2003); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-3-101(1) (Lexis 2004); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-431(a) (2005); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 15, §3110 (Lexis 1999); Fla. Stat. §101.021 (2003); Iowa Code §§43.38, 43.42 (2003); Kan. Stat. Ann. §25-4502 (2000); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 116.055 (Lexis 2004); La. Stat. Ann. §18:1280.25 (West Supp. 2005); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 53, §37 (West Supp. 2005); Neb. Rev. Stat. §32-312 (2004); Nev. Rev. Stat. §293.287 (2003); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §659:14 (West 1996); N. J. Stat. Ann. § 19:23-45.1 (West Supp. 2004); N. M. Stat. Ann. §1-12-7 (1995); N. Y. Elec. Law Ann. § 1-104.9 (West 2004); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 163-59 (Lexis 2003); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 25, §292 (Purdon 1994); R. I. Gen. Laws §§17-9.1-24, 17-15-24 (Lexis 2003); S. D. Codified Laws § 12-6-26 (West 2004); W. Va. Code § 3-1-35 (Lexis 2002); Wyo. Stat. §22-5-212 (Lexis 1977-2003).
Respondents argue, for the first time before this Court, that Oklahoma election statutes other than § 1-104 make it difficult for voters to disaffiliate from their parties of first choice and register as Libertarians or Independents (either of which would allow them to vote in the LPO primary). Brief for Respondents 13-19. For reasons we explain fully in Part III, we decline to consider this aspect of respondents’ challenge. See infra, at 597-598.
Respondents who are members of the Republican and Democratic Parties alleged before the District Court that they wished to have the right to participate in the 2000 LPO primary. See Amended Complaint 4, Record Doc. 23; Complaint 3, id., Doc. 1. The only evidence respondents submitted on this point was a pair of affidavits from respondents Mary Burnett (a registered Republican) and Floyd Turner (a registered Democrat), asserting that each might have wished to vote in the 2000 LPO primary. See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, id., Doc. 9 (attached affidavits). Based on Turner’s affidavit, the parties stipulated that there were “a number of voters” “registered in political parties other than the [LPO] who wish[ed] to vote” in the 2000 LPO primary. See Supplemental Joint Stipulations of Fact ¶ 32, id., Doc. 17. Respondents have never claimed that they are prevented from associating with the LPO in any way, except that they are unable to vote in the LPO’s primary and runoff elections.
To be most effective, a spurned candidate would have to defect in advance of the primary election. Before a candidate may file for nomination by a political party to any state or county office in Oklahoma, generally the candidate must have been a registered member of the party for six months prior to filing. See Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 26, §5-105(A) (West 1997). However, the registration period is only 15 days for candidates from parties, like the LPO, whose lack of electoral support means that they must regularly petition to be recognized as political parties. Ibid.; see also §§ 1-108, 1-109 (West Supp. 2005) (Oklahoma’s ballot access requirements). But even though candidates may defect up to two weeks before the primary, registered Republican and Democratic voters may not change their party affiliation after June 1, roughly eight weeks before the primary. See § 4-119; see also § 1-102 (setting primary on last Tuesday of July). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the disposition of the case, that is, the treatment the Supreme Court accorded the court whose decision it reviewed. The information relevant to this variable may be found near the end of the summary that begins on the title page of each case, or preferably at the very end of the opinion of the Court. For cases in which the Court granted a motion to dismiss, consider "petition denied or appeal dismissed". There is "no disposition" if the Court denied a motion to dismiss. | What is the disposition of the case, that is, the treatment the Supreme Court accorded the court whose decision it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed (includes modified)",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"certification to or from a lower court",
"no disposition"
] | [
3
] | sc |
ZEMEL v. RUSK, SECRETARY OF STATE, et al.
No. 86.
Argued March 1, 1965.
Decided May 3, 1965.
Leonard B. Boudin argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Victor Babinowitz and Samuel Gruber.
Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Daniel M. Friedman, Bruce J. Terris, Kevin T. Maroney and Lee B. Anderson.
Edward J. Ennis and Melvin L. Wulj filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Isidore Englander and Joseph Forer filed a brief for Anatol Schlosser, as amicus curiae.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The questions for decision are whether the Secretary of State is statutorily authorized to refuse to validate the passports of United States citizens for travel to Cuba, and, if he is, whether the exercise of that authority is constitutionally permissible. We answer both questions in the affirmative.
Prior to 1961 no passport was required for travel anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. On January 3 of that year, the United States broke diplomatic and consular relations with Cuba. On January 16 the Department of State eliminated Cuba from the area for which passports were not required, and declared all outstanding United States passports (except those held by persons already in Cuba) to be invalid for travel to or in Cuba “unless specifically endorsed for such travel under the authority of the Secretary of State.” A companion press release stated that the Department contemplated granting exceptions to “persons whose travel may be regarded as being in the best interests of the United States, such as newsmen or businessmen with previously established business interests.”
Through an exchange of letters in early 1962, appellant, a citizen of the United States and holder of an otherwise valid passport, applied to the State Department to have his passport validated for travel to Cuba as a tourist. His request was denied. On October 30, 1962, he renewed the request, stating that the purpose of the proposed trip was “to satisfy my curiosity about the state of affairs in Cuba and to make me a better informed citizen.” The request again was denied, on the ground that the purpose of the trip did not meet the previously prescribed standards for such travel.
On December 7, 1962, appellant instituted this suit against the Secretary of State and the Attorney General in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking a judgment declaring: (1) that he was entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States to travel to Cuba and to have his passport validated for that purpose; (2) that his travel to Cuba and the use of his passport for that purpose would not violate any statute, regulation, or passport restriction; (3) that the Secretary’s restrictions upon travel to Cuba were invalid; (4) that the Passport Act of 1926 and § 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 were unconstitutional; (5) that the Secretary’s refusal to grant him a passport valid for Cuba violated rights guaranteed him by the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights; and (6) that denial of the passport endorsement without a formal hearing violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment. The complaint also requested that the Secretary be directed to validate appellant’s passport for travel to Cuba and that the Secretary and the Attorney General be enjoined from interfering with such travel. In his amended complaint, appellant added to his constitutional attack on the 1926 and 1952 Acts a prayer that the Secretary and the Attorney General be enjoined from enforcing them.
On appellant’s motion, and over the objection of appellees, a three-judge court was convened. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court, by a divided vote, granted the Secretary of State’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action against the Attorney General, 228 F. Supp. 65 (D. C. D. Conn. 1964). We postponed consideration of the jurisdictional question to the hearing of the case on the merits, 379 U. S. 809.
I.
A direct appeal to this Court from a district court lies under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 (1958 ed.) only “from an order granting or denying ... 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.” Thus we must deal first with the Government’s contention that a three-judge court was improperly convened, for if the contention is correct, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 248.
Section 2282 of Title 28 of the United States Code requires the impanelling of a three-judge court in any case where the relief sought is “[a]n interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution of the United States . . . .” On its face, appellant’s amended complaint, by calling upon the court below to enjoin the enforcement of the Passport Act of 1926 and § 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,-on the ground that those statutes are unconstitutional, meets the requirements of § 2282. The Solicitor General notes that appellant would be accorded full relief by the voiding of the Secretary’s order. It is true that appellant’s argument — that either the Secretary’s order is not supported by the authority granted him by Congress, or the statutes granting that authority are unconstitutional — is two-pronged. But we have often held that a litigant need not abandon his nonconstitutional arguments in order to obtain a three-judge court: “the joining in the complaint of a nonconstitutional attack along with the constitutional one does not dispense with the necessity to convene such a court.”
The Solicitor General, apparently conceding — as all three judges below agreed — that appellant’s Fifth Amendment attack is substantial, cf. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 125; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 505-506, argues that it is in reality an attack upon an administrative, as opposed to a legislative, policy, and therefore, under cases like Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, and Ex parte Bransford, 310 U. S. 354, a three-judge court need not have been convened. We need not evaluate this contention, for appellant’s complaint also attacks the 1926 and 1952 Acts on the ground that “they contain no standards and are therefore an invalid delegation of legislative power.” This allegation cannot be brushed aside as an attack upon the actions of the Secretary; in arguing invalid delegation, appellant has quite clearly assailed the statutes themselves. The Solicitor General therefore meets the delegation argument on another ground: by labeling it “frivolous.” Although we do not accept appellant’s delegation argument, infra, pp. 17-18, we cannot agree that it is so insubstantial as to compel a district court to read it out of the complaint and refuse to convene a three-judge court. Compare William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U. S. 171; Schneider v. Rusk, 372 U. S. 224. Indeed, we explicitly noted in Kent v. Dulles, supra, at 129, that if we had held that the Secretary’s refusal to issue a passport to petitioner in that case was supported by the 1926 and 1952 Acts, we would then have been obliged to consider whether those Acts were void for invalid delegation.
The complaint therefore launches a substantial constitutional attack upon two federal statutes, and prays that their operation be enjoined. Cf. Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713, 715. We hold that the three-judge court was properly convened, and that we therefore have jurisdiction over the appeal.
H-1 I — i
We think that the Passport Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 887, 22 U. S. C. § 211a (1958 ed.), embodies a grant of authority to the Executive to refuse to validate the passports of United States citizens for travel to Cuba. That Act provides, in pertinent part:
“The Secretary of State may grant and issue passports . . . under such rules as the President shall designate and prescribe for and on behalf of the United States . ...”
This provision is derived from § 23 of the Act of August 18, 1856, 11 Stat. 52, 60-61, which had, prior to 1926, been re-enacted several times without substantial change. The legislative history of the 1926 Act and its predecessors does not, it is true, affirmatively indicate an intention to authorize area restrictions. However, its language is surely broad enough to authorize area restrictions, and there is no legislative history indicating an intent to exclude such restrictions from the grant of authority; these factors take on added significance when viewed in light of the fact that during the decade preceding the passage of the Act, the Executive had imposed both peacetime and wartime area restrictions. As a result of a famine in Belgium in 1915, the State Department stopped issuing passports for use in that country except to “applicants obliged to go thither by special exigency or authorized by Red Cross or Belgian Relief Commission.” Ill Hack-worth, Digest of International Law, p. 526 (1942). Beginning December 9, 1914, and continuing through World War I, passports were validated only for specific purposes and specific countries. No passports were issued for travel in Germany and Austria until July 18, 1922, and none for the Soviet Union until approximately September 1923. Hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Department of State Passport Policies, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 63-64. The use in the 1926 Act of language broad enough to permit executive imposition of area restrictions, after the Executive had several times in the recent past openly asserted the power to impose such restrictions under predecessor statutes containing substantially the same language, supports the conclusion that Congress intended in 1926 to maintain in the Executive the authority to make such restrictions.
This construction of the Act is reinforced by the State Department’s continued imposition of area restrictions during both times of war and periods of peace since 1926. For a period of about seven months following the outbreak of war between Italy and Ethiopia in 1935, the Department declined to issue passports for travel in Ethiopia, except to journalists, Red Cross representatives, and others able to show a “compelling exigency” necessitating such travel. In cases where persons did not include Ethiopia in their applications, but were — -by reason of the mention in their applications of adjacent countries — suspected of intending to travel therein, their passports were stamped “not valid for use in Ethiopia.” Ill Hackworth, su-pra, pp. 531-532. Following the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936, passports were stamped “not valid for travel in Spain,” with exceptions for newspapermen and persons furnishing medical assistance. Id., at 533-534. A similar restriction was placed on travel to China in August 1937, in view of “the disturbed situation in the Far East.” Passports were validated for travel to China only “in exceptional circumstances,” and in no case for women or children. Id., at 532-533.
On March 31, 1938, the President, purporting to act pursuant to the 1926 Act, specifically authorized the Secretary to impose area restrictions in the issuance of passports, Exec. Order No. 7856, 3 Fed. Reg. 681, 687:
“The Secretary of State is authorized in his discretion to refuse to issue a passport, to restrict a passport for use only in certain countries, to restrict it against use in certain countries, to withdraw or cancel a passport already issued, and to withdraw a passport for the purpose of restricting its validity or use in certain countries.”
This Executive Order is still in force. 22 CFR § 51.75. In September 1939, travel to Europe was prohibited except with a passport specially validated for such travel; passports were so validated only upon a showing of the “imperativeness” of the travel. Departmental Order No. 811, 4 Fed. Reg. 3892.
Area restrictions have also been imposed on numerous occasions since World War II. Travel to Yugoslavia was restricted in the late 1940’s as a result of a series of incidents involving American citizens. Dept. State Press Conf., May 9, 1947. Travel to Hungary was restricted between December 1949 and May 1951, and after December 1951. In June 1951, the State Department began to stamp passports “not valid for travel in Czechoslovakia,” and declared that all passports outstanding at that time were not valid for such travel. 24 Dept. State Bull. 932. In May 1952, the Department issued a general order that all new passports would be stamped not valid for travel to Albania, Bulgaria, Communist China, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Rumania and the Soviet Union. 26 id., at 736. In October 1955, the Secretary announced that passports would no longer require special validation for travel to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Rumania and the Soviet Union, but would be stamped invalid for travel “to the following areas under control of authorities with which the United States does not have diplomatic relations: Albania, Bulgaria, and those portions of China, Korea and Viet-Nam under communist control.” 33 id:, at 777. In February 1956, the restriction on travel to Hungary was reimposed. 34 id., at 246-248. And in late 1956, passports were for a brief period stamped invalid for travel to or in Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Syria. 35 id., at 756.
Even if there had been no passport legislation enacted since the 1926 Act, the post-1926 history of executive imposition of area restrictions, as well as the pre-1926 history, would be of relevance to our construction of the Act. The interpretation expressly placed on a statute by those charged with its administration must be given weight by courts faced with the task of construing the statute. Udall v. Tollman, 380 U. S. 1, 16-18; Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294, 315. Under some circumstances, Congress’ failure to repeal or revise in the face of such administrative interpretation has been held to constitute persuasive evidence that that interpretation is the one intended by Congress. In this case, however, the inference is supported by more than mere congressional inaction. For in 1952 Congress, substantially re-enacting laws which had been passed during the First and Second World Wars, provided that after the issuance of a presidential proclamation of war or national emergency, it would be unlawful to leave or enter the United States without a valid passport. Section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 190, 8 U. S. C. § 1185 (1958 ed.). The Solicitor General urges that in view of the issuance in 1953 of a presidential proclamation of national emergency which is still outstanding, travel in violation of an area restriction imposed on an otherwise valid passport is unlawful under the 1952 Act. The correctness of this interpretation is a question we do not reach on this appeal, see infra, pp. 18-20. But whether or not the new legislation was intended to attach criminal penalties to the violation of area restrictions, it certainly was not meant to cut back upon the power to impose such restrictions. Despite 26 years of executive interpretation of the 1926 Act as authorizing the imposition of area restrictions, Congress in 1952, though it once again enacted legislation relating to passports, left completely untouched the broad rule-making authority granted in the earlier Act. Cf. Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, supra, at 313.
This case is therefore not like Kent v. Dulles, supra, where we were unable to find, with regard to the sort of passport refusal involved there, an administrative practice sufficiently substantial and consistent to warrant the conclusion that Congress had implicitly approved it. Appellant reminds us that in summarizing the Secretary’s practice in Kent, we observed:
“So far as material here, the cases of refusal of passports generally fell into two categories. First, questions pertinent to the citizenship of the applicant and his allegiance to the United States had to be resolved by the Secretary .... Second, was the question whether the applicant was participating in illegal conduct, trying to escape the toils of the law, promoting passport frauds, or otherwise engaging in conduct which would violate the laws of the United States.” 357 U. S., at 127.
It must be remembered, in reading this passage, that the issue involved in Kent was whether a citizen could be denied a passport because of his political beliefs or associations. In finding that history did not support the position of the Secretary in that case, we summarized that history “so far as matérial here” — that is, so far as material to passport refusals based on the character of the particular applicant. In this case, however, the Secretary hgs refused to validate appellant’s passport not because of any characteristic peculiar to appellant, but rather because of foreign policy considerations affecting all citizens.
III.
Having concluded that the Secretary of State’s refusal to validate appellant’s passport for travel to Cuba is supported by the authority granted by Congress in the Passport Act of 1926, we must next consider whether that refusal abridges any constitutional right of appellant. Although we do not in this case reach the question of whether the 1952 Act should be read to attach criminal penalties to travel to an area for which one’s passport is not validated, we must, if we are to approach the constitutional issues presented by this appeal candidly, proceed on the assumption that the Secretary’s refusal to validate a passport for a given area acts as a deterrent to travel to that area. In Kent v. Dulles, supra, at 125, we held that “ft]he right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” See also Ap-theker v. Secretary of State, supra, at 505-506. However, the fact that a liberty cannot be inhibited without due process of law does not mean that it can under no circumstances be inhibited.
The requirements of due process are a function not only of the extent of the governmental restriction imposed, but also of the extent of the necessity for the restriction. Cuba is the only area in the Western Hemisphere controlled by a Communist government. It is, moreover, the judgment of the State Department that a major goal of the Castro regime is to export its Communist revolution to the rest of Latin America. The United States and other members of the Organization of American States have determined that travel between Cuba and the other countries of the Western Hemisphere is an important element in the spreading of subversion, and many have therefore undertaken measures to discourage such travel. It also cannot be forgotten that in the early days of the Castro regime, United States citizens were arrested and imprisoned without charges. We think, particularly in view of the President’s statutory obligation to “use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper” to secure the release of an American citizen unjustly deprived of his liberty by a foreign government, that the Secretary has justifiably concluded that travel to Cuba by American citizens might involve the Nation in dangerous international incidents, and that the Constitution does not require him to validate passports for such travel.
The right to travel within the United States is of course also constitutionally protected, cf. Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160. But that freedom does not mean that areas ravaged by flood, fire or pestilence cannot be quarantined when it can be demonstrated that unlimited travel to the area would directly and materially interfere with the safety and welfare of the area or the Nation as a whole. So it is with international travel. That the restriction which is challenged in this case is supported by the weightiest considerations of national security is perhaps best pointed up by recalling that the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 preceded the filing of appellant’s complaint by less than two months.
Appellant also asserts that the Secretary’s refusal to validate his passport for travel to Cuba denies him rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. His claim is different from that which was raised in Kent v. Dulles, supra, and Aptheker v. Secretary of State, supra, for the refusal to validate appellant’s passport does not result from any expression or association on his part; appellant is not being forced to choose between membership in an organization and freedom to travel. Appellant’s allegation is, rather, that the “travel ban is a direct interference with the First Amendment rights of citizens to travel abroad so that they might acquaint themselves at first hand with the effects abroad of our Government’s policies, foreign and domestic, and with conditions abroad which might affect such policies.” We must agree that the Secretary’s refusal to validate passports for Cuba renders less than wholly free the flow of information concerning that country. While we further agree that this is a factor to be considered in determining whether appellant has been denied due process of law, we cannot accept the contention of appellant that it is a First Amendment right which is involved. For to the extent that the Secretary’s refusal to validate passports for Cuba acts as an inhibition (and it would be unrealistic to assume that it does not), it is an inhibition of action. There are few restrictions on action which could not be clothed by ingenious argument in the garb of decreased data flow. For example, the prohibition of unauthorized entry into the White House diminishes the citizen’s opportunities to gather information he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country is being run, but that does not make entry into the White House a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.
Finally, appellant challenges the 1926 Act on the ground that it does not contain sufficiently definite standards for the formulation of travel controls by the Executive. It is important to bear in mind, in appraising this argument, that because of the changeable and explosive nature of contemporary international relations, and the fact that the Executive is immediately privy to information which cannot be swiftly presented to, evaluated by, and acted upon by the legislature, Congress — in giving the Executive authority over matters of foreign affairs — must of necessity paint with a brush broader than that it customarily wields in domestic areas.
“Practically every volume of the United States Statutes contains one or more acts or joint resolutions of Congress authorizing action by the President in respect of subjects affecting foreign relations, which either leave the exercise of the power to his unrestricted judgment, or provide a standard far more general than that which has always been considered requisite with regard to domestic affairs.” United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 324.
This does not mean that simply because a statute deals with foreign relations, it can grant the Executive totally unrestricted freedom of choice. However, the 1926 Act contains no such grant. We have held, Kent v. Dulles, supra, and reaffirm today, that the 1926 Act must take its content from history: it authorizes only those passport refusals and restrictions “which it could fairly be argued were adopted by Congress in light of prior administrative practice.” Kent v. Dulles, supra, at 128. So limited, the Act does not constitute an invalid delegation.
IV.
Appellant’s complaint sought not only an order compelling the Secretary of State to validate his passport for travel to Cuba, but also a declaration that appellant “is entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States to travel to Cuba,” and an order enjoining the Secretary and the Attorney General from interfering with such travel. Read in the context of the arguments appellant makes here, it appears that the intent of the complaint was that these latter prayers should be considered only in the event that the court decided that the Secretary lacks authority to refuse to validate appellant’s passport for Cuba. However, the complaint can- also be read to incorporate a request that, even if the court should find that the Secretary does have such authority, it go on to decide whether appellant can be criminally prosecuted, under § 215 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 190, 8 U. S. C. § 1185 (b) (1958 ed.), for travel in violation of an area restriction. That section provides:
“After such proclamation as is provided for in subsection (a) has been made and published and while such proclamation is in force, it shall, except as otherwise provided by the President, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize and prescribe, be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid passport.”
A proclamation of the sort referred to was issued in 1953 and remains on the books. Pres. Proc. No. 3004, 67 Stat. c31; cf. Exec. Order No. 11037, 3 CFR 621 (1959-1963 Comp.). We hold that on either interpretation of the complaint, the court below was correct in refusing to reach the issue of criminal liability.
There are circumstances under which courts properly make exceptions to the general rule that equity will not interfere with the criminal processes, by entertaining actions for injunction or declaratory relief in advance of criminal prosecution. See Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U. S. 202; Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197. However, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201 (1958 ed.), “is an enabling Act, which confers a discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right upon the litigant.” Public Serv. Comm’n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U. S. 237, 241. The complaint filed in this case does not specify the sort of travel to Cuba appellant has in mind — e. g., whether he plans to proceed to Cuba directly or travel there via one or more other countries. Nor can we tell from the papers filed whether the Government will, in the event appellant journeys to Cuba, charge him under § 215 (b) with leaving the United States on a carrier bound for Cuba with a passport not validated for Cuba; leaving the United States with such a passport with the intent of traveling to Cuba before he returns home; leaving the United States with such a passport on a journey which in fact takes him to Cuba; re-entering the United States with such a passport after having visited Cuba; some other act — or whether it will charge him at all. Whether each or any of these gradations of fact or charge would make a difference as to criminal liability is an issue on which the District Court wisely took no position. Nor do we. For if we are to avoid rendering a series of advisory opinions, adjudication of the reach and constitutionality of § 215 (b) must await a concrete fact situation. Compare Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450.
The District Court therefore correctly dismissed the complaint, and its judgment is
Affirmed.
This procedural claim was abandoned in the District Court and has not been urged here.
Florida Lime Growers v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73, 80; see also Allen v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., 347 U. S. 535; Lee v. Bickell, 292 U. S. 415; Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378.
See also Douglas v. Noble, 261 U. S. 165.
The convening of a three-judge court in this case surely coincides with the legislative policy underlying the passage of §2282:
“The legislative history of § 2282 and of its complement, § 2281 . . . indicates that these sections were enacted to prevent a single federal judge from being able to paralyze totally the operation of an entire regulatory scheme, either state or federal, by issuance of a broad injunctive order. . . . Repeatedly emphasized during the congressional debates on § 2282 were the heavy pecuniary costs of the unforeseen and debilitating interruptions in the administration of federal law which could be wrought by a single judge’s order, and the great burdens entailed in coping with harassing actions brought one after another to challenge the operation of an entire statutory scheme, wherever jurisdiction over government officials could be acquired, until a judge was ultimately found who would grant the desired injunction.” Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 154-155.
Appellant in this case does not challenge merely a “single, unique exercise” of the Secretary’s authority, cf. Phillips v. United States, supra, at 253. On the contrary, this suit seeks to “paralyze totally the operation of an entire regulatory scheme,” indeed, a regulatory scheme designed and administered to promote the security of the Nation.
The Secretary of State, rather than the President, imposed the restriction on travel to Cuba. However, Congress has provided that “[t]he Secretary of State shall perform such duties as shall from time to time be enjoined on or intrusted to him by the President relative to . . . such . . . matters respecting foreign affairs as the President of the United States shall assign to the department . . . R. S. § 202, 5 U. S. C. § 156 (1958 ed.). The President, in turn, has authorized the Secretary in his discretion “to restrict a passport for use only in certain countries [or] to restrict it against use in certain countries . . . .” Exec. Order No. 7856, 3 Fed. Reg. 681, 687, 22 CFR § 51.75.
United States v. Cerecedo Hermanos y Compania, 209 U. S. 337; Service v. Dulles, 354 U. S. 363, 380; Labor Board v. Gullett Gin Co., 340 II. S. 361, 366.
22 Dept. State Bull. 399; 26 id., at 7.
Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, supra, at 313; Costanzo v. Tillinghast, 287 U. S. 341, 345; United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459, 472-473.
Act, of May 22, 1918, 40 Stat. 559; Act of June 21, 1941, 55 Stat.. 252.
Pres. Proc. No. 3004, 67 Stat. c31; cf. Exec. Order No. 11037, 3 CFR 621 (1959-1963 Comp.).
Pres. Proc. No. 3004, 67 Stat. c31, which was issued in 1953 pursuant to § 215, stated that the departure and entry of citizens would be governed by “sections 53.1 to 53.9, inclusive, of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” 22 CFR §53.8 (1949 ed.) provided:
"Nothing in this part shall bo construed to prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the discretion resting in him to refuse to issue a passport, to restrict its use to certain countries, to withdraw or cancel a passport already issued, or to withdraw a passport, for the purpose of restricting its validity or use in certain countries.”
Aptheker v. Secretary of State, supra, at 505-514; Shachtman v. Dulles, 96 U. S. App. D. C. 287, 290 (opinion of the court), 293 (Edgerton, J., concurring), 225 F. 2d 938, 941, 944 (1955); of. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 499-500; Freedom to Travel (Report of Special Committee to Study Passport Procedures, Ass’n of the Bar of the City of New York), pp. 53, 55 (1958); Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787, p. 192 (1956).
Compare Kent v. Dulles, supra; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, supra; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 13 (quoted, S. Doc. No. 123, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., p. 1157); Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 218.
Cuba, Dept. State Pub. No. 7171, pp. 25-36 (1961); see also Ball, U. S. Policy Toward Cuba, Dept. State Pub. No. 7690, p. 3 (1964); 47 Dept. State Bull. 598-600.
See Report of the Special Committee to Study Resolutions II.1 and VIII of the Eighth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, OEA/Ser. G/IV, pp. 14-16 (1963); 48 Dept. State Bull. 517, 719; Resolution I, Final Act, Ninth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, OEA/Ser. F/II.9 (1964).
R. S. § 2001, 22 U. S. C. § 1732 (1958 ed.), provides :
“Whenever it. is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.”
Indeed, it was precisely this sort of consideration which led us to hold in Kent v. Dulles, supra, at 126-127, that the right to travel is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See also Aptheker v. Secretary of State, supra, at 520 (Douglas, J., concurring).
The Solicitor General does not state with particularity the Government’s position as to the reach of § 215 (b) with regard to area restrictions; he simply asserts that §215 (b) “confirms the authority of the Secretary to impose area restrictions in the issuance of passports and prohibits travel in violation thereof.” Brief for Appellees, p. 56; see also id., at 10-11, 60-61. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the federal agency involved in the administrative action that occurred prior to the onset of litigation. If the administrative action occurred in a state agency, respond "State Agency". Do not code the name of the state. The administrative activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. If two federal agencies are mentioned, consider the one whose action more directly bears on the dispute;otherwise the agency that acted more recently. If a state and federal agency are mentioned, consider the federal agency. Pay particular attention to the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations. | What is the agency involved in the administrative action? | [
"Army and Air Force Exchange Service",
"Atomic Energy Commission",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force",
"Department or Secretary of Agriculture",
"Alien Property Custodian",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army",
"Board of Immigration Appeals",
"Bureau of Indian Affairs",
"Bureau of Prisons",
"Bonneville Power Administration",
"Benefits Review Board",
"Civil Aeronautics Board",
"Bureau of the Census",
"Central Intelligence Agency",
"Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
"Department or Secretary of Commerce",
"Comptroller of Currency",
"Consumer Product Safety Commission",
"Civil Rights Commission",
"Civil Service Commission, U.S.",
"Customs Service or Commissioner or Collector of Customs",
"Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission",
"Drug Enforcement Agency",
"Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)",
"Department or Secretary of Energy",
"Department or Secretary of the Interior",
"Department of Justice or Attorney General",
"Department or Secretary of State",
"Department or Secretary of Transportation",
"Department or Secretary of Education",
"U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner",
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission",
"Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator",
"Federal Aviation Agency or Administration",
"Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director",
"Federal Bureau of Prisons",
"Farm Credit Administration",
"Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)",
"Federal Credit Union Administration",
"Food and Drug Administration",
"Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Energy Administration",
"Federal Election Commission",
"Federal Energy Regulatory Commission",
"Federal Housing Administration",
"Federal Home Loan Bank Board",
"Federal Labor Relations Authority",
"Federal Maritime Board",
"Federal Maritime Commission",
"Farmers Home Administration",
"Federal Parole Board",
"Federal Power Commission",
"Federal Railroad Administration",
"Federal Reserve Board of Governors",
"Federal Reserve System",
"Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation",
"Federal Trade Commission",
"Federal Works Administration, or Administrator",
"General Accounting Office",
"Comptroller General",
"General Services Administration",
"Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare",
"Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services",
"Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development",
"Administrative agency established under an interstate compact (except for the MTC)",
"Interstate Commerce Commission",
"Indian Claims Commission",
"Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement",
"Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of",
"Information Security Oversight Office",
"Department or Secretary of Labor",
"Loyalty Review Board",
"Legal Services Corporation",
"Merit Systems Protection Board",
"Multistate Tax Commission",
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration",
"Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Navy",
"National Credit Union Administration",
"National Endowment for the Arts",
"National Enforcement Commission",
"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration",
"National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer",
"National Mediation Board",
"National Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission",
"National Security Agency",
"Office of Economic Opportunity",
"Office of Management and Budget",
"Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator",
"Office of Personnel Management",
"Occupational Safety and Health Administration",
"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission",
"Office of Workers' Compensation Programs",
"Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of",
"Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)",
"Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation",
"U.S. Public Health Service",
"Postal Rate Commission",
"Provider Reimbursement Review Board",
"Renegotiation Board",
"Railroad Adjustment Board",
"Railroad Retirement Board",
"Subversive Activities Control Board",
"Small Business Administration",
"Securities and Exchange Commission",
"Social Security Administration or Commissioner",
"Selective Service System",
"Department or Secretary of the Treasury",
"Tennessee Valley Authority",
"United States Forest Service",
"United States Parole Commission",
"Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster",
"United States Sentencing Commission",
"Veterans' Administration or Board of Veterans' Appeals",
"War Production Board",
"Wage Stabilization Board",
"State Agency",
"Unidentifiable",
"Office of Thrift Supervision",
"Department of Homeland Security",
"Board of General Appraisers",
"Board of Tax Appeals",
"General Land Office or Commissioners",
"NO Admin Action",
"Processing Tax Board of Review"
] | [
27
] | sc |
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE et al. v. DUKE ENERGY CORP. et al.
No. 05-848.
Argued November 1, 2006
Decided April 2, 2007
Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Auto, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part III-A. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, post, p. 582.
Sean H. Donahue argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were David T. Goldberg, Jeffrey M. Gleason, J. Blanding Holman IV, and Caleb Jaffe.
Deputy Solicitor General Hungar argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Wooldridge, James A. Feldman, Katherine J. Barton, Ann R. Klee, Chet M. Thompson, Granta Y. Nakayama, Thomas W. Swegle, Carol S. Holmes, David W. Schnare, and Alan Dion.
Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Mark D. Hopson, Kathryn B. Thomson, Stephen M. Nickelsburg, Henry V. Nickel, F. William Brownell, Makram Jaber, Marc E. Manly, Catherine S. Stempien, Garry S. Rice, T. Thomas Cottingham III, and Nash E. Long III
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of New Jersey et al. by Zulima V. Farber, former Attorney General of New Jersey, Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, and Kevin P. Auerbacher and Jung W. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, and by the Attorneys General and other officials for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Terry Goddard, Attorney General of Arizona, Joseph P. Mikitish, Assistant Attorney General, Robert J. Spagnoletti, former Attorney General of the District of Columbia, Edward E. Schwab, Deputy Solicitor General, and Donna M. Murasky, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General of Kentucky, Douglas Scott Porter, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A Cox, Attorney General of Michigan, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Alan F. Hoffman and Neil D. Gordon, Assistant Attorneys General, Rob McKenna, Attorney General of Washington, and Leslie R. Seffern, Assistant Attorney General; for the State of New York et al. by Eliot Spitzer, former Attorney General of New York, Caitlin J. Halligan, Solicitor General, Andrew Bing and Daniel J. Chepaitis, Assistant Solicitors General, Peter H. Lehner, Robert Rosenthal, J. Jared Snyder, and Michael J. Myers, Assistant Attorneys General, by Susan Shinkman and Robert A Reiley, and by the Attorneys General and former Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Bill Lockyer of California, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Carl C. Dan-berg of Delaware, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, G. Steven Rowe of Maine, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Mike Hatch of Minnesota, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Patricia A Madrid of New Mexico, Hardy Myers of Oregon, Patrick Lynch of Rhode Island, and William H. Sorrell of Vermont; for the American Lung Association et al. by Hope M. Babcock; for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation et al. by Michael D. Goodstein and Julie Kaplan; for Law Professors by Jared A Goldstein; for the National Parks Conservation Association et al. by George E. Hays and Michael A. Costa; for STAPPA et al. by Richard E. Ayres; for Current and Former Members of Congress by Stephanie Tai; and for Former Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Carol M. Browner et al. by Holly D. Gordon and Deborah A Sivas.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Alabama et al. by Troy King, Attorney General of Alabama, Kevin C. Newsom, Solicitor General, and Robert D. Tambling, Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General and former Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: David W. Marquez of Alaska, John W. Suthers of Colorado, Steve Carter of Indiana, Phill Kline of Kansas, Jon Bruning of Nebraska, Henry D. McMaster of South Carolina, Lawrence E. Long of South Dakota, Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia, and Patrick J. Crank of Wyoming; for APA Watch by Lawrence J. Joseph; for the American Public Power Association et al. by Janet Pitterle Holt, Rae E. Cronmiller, and Richard H. Robinson; for the Electric Utility Industry by Steven G. McKinney, Michael D. Freeman, and P. Stephen Gidiere III; for Law Professors by David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Lee A Casey; for the Manufacturers Association Work Group by Charles H. Knauss, Robert V. Zener, Julie C. Becker, Richard S. Wasserstrom, Kevin B. Belford, M. Elizabeth Cox, Jan S. Amundson, Quentin Riegel, Robin S. Conrad, and Amar D. Sarwal; for the National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project by Leslie Sue Ritts and Lorane F. Hebert; and for the Washington Legal Foundation by Daniel J. Popeo and Paul D. Kamenar.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, et al. by Scott H. Segal and Jason B. Hutt; for Walter C. Barber by Robert L. Brubaker; and for U. S. Representative Joe L. Barton by George C. Landrith and Christopher C. Horner.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the 1970s, Congress added two air pollution control schemes to the Clean Air Act: New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), each of them covering modified, as well as new, stationary sources of air pollution. The NSPS provisions define the term “modification,” 42 U. S. C. § 7411(a)(4), while the PSD provisions use that word “as defined in” NSPS, § 7479(2)(C). The Court of Appeals concluded that the statute requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conform its PSD regulations on “modification” to their NSPS counterparts, and that EPA’s 1980 PSD regulations can be given this conforming construction. We hold that the Court of Appeals’s reading of the 1980 PSD regulations, intended to align them with NSPS, was inconsistent with their terms and effectively invalidated them; any such result must be shown to comport with the Act’s restrictions on judicial review of EPA regulations for validity.
I
The Clean Air Amendments of 1970, 84 Stat. 1676, broadened federal authority to combat air pollution, see Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 845-846 (1984), and directed EPA to devise National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) limiting various pollutants, which the States were obliged to implement and enforce, 42 U. S. C. §§ 7409, 7410. The amendments dealing with NSPS authorized EPA to require operators of stationary sources of air pollutants to use the best technology for limiting pollution, Chevron, supra, at 846; see also 1 F. Grad, Environmental Law §2.03 [14], p. 2-356 (2006), both in newly constructed sources and those undergoing “modification,” 42 U. S. C. § 7411(a)(2). Section 111(a) of the 1970 amendments defined this term within the NSPS scheme as “any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted,” 42 U. S. C. § 7411(a)(4).
EPA’s 1975 regulations implementing NSPS provided generally that “any physical or operational change to an existing facility which results in an increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere of any pollutant to which a standard applies shall be considered a modification within the meaning of section 111.” 40 CFR §60.14(a) (1976). Especially significant here is the identification of an NSPS “modification” as a change that “increase^] . . . the emission rate,” which “shall be expressed as kg/hr of any pollutant discharged into the atmosphere. ” § 60.14(b).
NSPS, however, did too little to “achiev[e] the ambitious goals of the 1970 Amendments,” R. Belden, Clean Air Act 7 (2001) (hereinafter Belden), and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 91 Stat. 685, included the PSD provisions, which aimed at giving added protection to air quality in certain parts of the country “notwithstanding attainment and maintenance of” the NAAQS. 42 U. S. C. § 7470(1). The 1977 amendments required a PSD permit before a “major emitting facility” could be “constructed” in an area covered by the scheme. § 7475(a). As originally enacted, PSD applied only to newly constructed sources, but soon a technical amendment added the following subparagraph: “The term ‘construction’ when used in connection with any source or facility, includes the modification (as defined in section 111(a)) of any source or facility.” §14(a)(54), 91 Stat. 1402, 42 U. S. C. § 7479(2)(C); see also New York v. EPA, 413 F. 3d 3, 13 (CADC 2005) (per curiam). In other words, the “construction” requiring a PSD permit under the statute was made to include (though it was not limited to) a “modification” as defined in the statutory NSPS provisions.
In 1980, EPA issued PSD regulations, which “limited the application of [PSD] review” of modified sources to instances of “‘major’ modification,” Belden 46, defined as “any physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that would result in a significant net emissions increase of any pollutant subject to regulation under the Act.” 40 CFR § 51.166(b)(2)(i) (1987). Further regulations in turn addressed various elements of this definition, three of which are to the point here. First, the regulations specified that an operational change consisting merely of “[a]n increase in the hours of operation or in the production rate” would not generally constitute a “physical change in or change in the method of operation.” § 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(/). For purposes of a PSD permit, that is, such an operational change would not amount to a “modification” as the Act defines it. Second, the PSD regulations defined a “net emissions increase” as “[a]ny increase in actual emissions from a particular physical change or change in the method of operation,” net of other contemporaneous “increases and decreases in actual emissions at the source.” §51.166(b)(3)(i). “Actual emissions” were defined to “equal the average rate, in tons per year, at which the unit actually emitted the pollutant during a two-year period which precedes the particular date and which is representative of normal source operation.” §51.166(b)(21)(ii). “[AJetual emissions” were to be “calculated using the unit’s actual operating hours [and] production rates.” Ibid. Third, the term “significant” was defined as “a rate of emissions that would equal or exceed” one or another enumerated threshold, each expressed in “tons per year.” § 51.166(b)(23)(i).
It would be bold to try to synthesize these statutory and regulatory provisions in a concise paragraph, but three points are relatively clear about the regime that covers this case:
(a) The Act defines modification of a stationary source of a pollutant as a physical change to it, or a change in the method of its operation, that increases the amount of a pollutant discharged or emits a new one.
(b) EPA’s NSPS regulations require a source to use the best available pollution-limiting technology only when a modification would increase the rate of discharge of pollutants measured in kilograms per hour.
(c) EPA’s 1980 PSD regulations require a permit for a modification (with the same statutory definition) only when it is a major one and only when it would increase the actual annual emission of a pollutant above the actual average for the two prior years.
The Court of Appeals held that Congress’s provision defining a PSD modification by reference to an NSPS modification caught not only the statutory NSPS definition, but also whatever regulatory gloss EPA puts on that definition at any given time (for the purposes of the best technology requirement). When, therefore, EPA’s PSD regulations specify the “change” that amounts to a “major modification” requiring a PSD permit, they must measure an increase in “the amount of any air pollutant emitted,” 42 U. S. C. § 7411(a)(4), in terms of the hourly rate of discharge, just the way NSPS regulations do. Petitioners and the United States say, on the contrary, that when EPA addresses the object of the PSD scheme it is free to put a different regulatory interpretation on the common statutory core of “modification,” by measuring increased emission not in terms of hourly rate but by the actual, annual discharge of a pollutant that will follow the modification, regardless of rate per hour. This disagreement is the nub of the case.
II
Respondent Duke Energy Corporation runs 30 coal-fired electric generating units at eight plants in North and South Carolina. United States v. Duke Energy Corp., 411 F. 3d 539, 544 (CA4 2005). The units were placed in service between 1940 and 1975, and each includes a boiler containing thousands of steel tubes arranged in sets. Ibid. Between 1988 and 2000, Duke replaced or redesigned 29 tube assemblies in order to extend the life of the units and allow them to run longer each day. Ibid.
The United States filed this action in 2000, claiming, among other things, that Duke violated the PSD provisions by doing this work without permits. Environmental Defense, North Carolina Sierra Club, and North Carolina Public Interest Research Group Citizen Lobby/Education Fund intervened as plaintiffs and filed a complaint charging similar violations.
Duke moved for summary judgment, one of its positions being that none of the projects was a “major modification” requiring a PSD permit because none increased hourly rates of emissions. The District Court agreed with Duke’s reading of the 1980 PSD regulations. It reasoned that their express exclusion of “ ‘[a]n increase in the hours of operation’ ” from the definition of a “ ‘physical change or change in the method of operation’” implied that “post-project emissions levels must be calculated assuming” preproject hours of operation. 278 F. Supp. 2d 619, 640-641 (MDNC 2003). Consequently, the District Court said, a PSD “major modification” can occur “only if the project increases the hourly rate of emissions.” Id., at 641. The District Court found further support for its construction of the 1980 PSD regulations in one letter and one memorandum written in 1981 by EPA’s Director of the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, Edward E. Reich. Id., at 641-642.
The United States and intervenor-plaintiffs (collectively, plaintiffs) subsequently stipulated “that they do not contend that the projects at issue in this case caused an increase in the maximum hourly rate of emissions at any of Duke Energy’s units.” App. 504. Rather, their claim “is based solely on their contention that the projects would have been projected to result in an increased utilization of the units at issue.” Ibid. Duke, for its part, stipulated to plaintiffs’ right to appeal the District Court’s determination that projects resulting in greater operating hours are not “major modifications” triggering the PSD permit requirement, absent an increase in the hourly rate of emissions. The District Court then entered summary judgment for Duke on all PSD claims.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, “albeit for somewhat different reasons.” 411 F. 3d, at 542. “[T]he language and various interpretations of the PSD regulations . . . are largely irrelevant to the proper analysis of this case,” reasoned the Court of Appeals, “because Congress’ decision to create identical statutory definitions of the term ‘modification’” in the NSPS and PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act “has affirmatively mandated that this term be interpreted identically” in the regulations promulgated under those provisions. Id., at 547, n. 3, 550. The Court of Appeals relied principally on the authority of Rowan Cos. v. United States, 452 U. S. 247, 250 (1981), where we held against the Government’s differing interpretations of the word “wages” in different tax provisions. 411 F. 3d, at 550. As the Court of Appeals saw it, Rowan establishes an “effectively irrebuttable” presumption that PSD regulations must contain the same conditions for a “modification” as the NSPS regulations, including an increase in the hourly rate of emissions. 411 F. 3d, at 550.
As the Court of Appeals said, Duke had not initially relied on Rowan, see 411 F. 3d, at 547, n. 4, and when the Court sua sponte requested supplemental briefing on Rowan's relevance, plaintiffs injected a new issue into the case. They argued that a claim that the 1980 PSD regulation exceeded statutory authority would be an attack on the validity of the regulation that could not be raised in an enforcement proceeding. See 42 U. S. C. § 7607(b)(2). Under § 307(b) of the Act, they said, judicial review for validity can be obtained only by a petition to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, generally within 60 days of EPA’s rule-making. 42 U. S. C. § 7607(b).
The Court of Appeals rejected this argument. “Our choice of this interpretation of the PSD regulations ... is not an invalidation of those regulations,” it said, because “the PSD regulations can be interpreted” to require an increase in the hourly emissions rate as an element of a major “modification” triggering the permit requirement. 411 F. 3d, at 549, n. 7. To show that the 1980 PSD regulations are open to this construction, the Court of Appeals cited the conclusions of the District Court and the Reich opinions.
We granted the petition for certiorari brought by intervenor-plaintiffs, 547 U. S. 1127 (2006), and now vacate.
III
The Court of Appeals understood that it was simply construing EPA’s 1980 PSD regulations in a permissible way that left them in harmony with their NSPS counterpart and, hence, the Act’s single definition of “modification.” The plaintiffs say that the Court of Appeals was rewriting the PSD regulations in a way neither required by the Act nor consistent with their own text.
It is true that no precise line runs between a purposeful but permissible reading of the regulation adopted to bring it into harmony with the Court of Appeals’s view of the statute, and a determination that the regulation as written is invalid. But the latter occurred here, for the Court of Appeals’s efforts to trim the PSD regulations to match their different NSPS counterparts can only be seen as an implicit declaration that the PSD regulations were invalid as written.
A
In applying the 1980 PSD regulations to Duke’s conduct, the Court of Appeals thought that, by defining the term “modification” identically in its NSPS and PSD provisions, the Act required EPA to conform its PSD interpretation of that definition to any such interpretation it reasonably adhered to under NSPS. But principles of statutory construction are not so rigid. Although we presume that the same term has the same meaning when it occurs here and there in a single statute, the Court of Appeals mischaracterized that presumption as “effectively irrebuttable.” 411 F. 3d, at 550. We also understand that “[m]ost words have different shades of meaning and consequently may be variously construed, not only when they occur in different statutes, but when used more than once in the same statute or even in the same section.” Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U. S. 427, 433 (1932). Thus, the “natural presumption that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning ... is not rigid and readily yields whenever there is such variation in the connection in which the words are used as reasonably to warrant the conclusion that they were employed in different parts of the act with different intent.” Ibid. A given term in the same statute may take on distinct characters from association with distinct statutory objects calling for different implementation strategies.
The point is the same even when the terms share a common statutory definition, if it is general enough, as we recognized in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U. S. 337 (1997). There the question was whether the term “employees” in § 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covered former employees. Title VII expressly defined the term “employee,” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(f), but the definition was “consistent with either current or past employment,” 519 U. S., at 342, and we held that “each section” of Title VII “must be analyzed to determine whether the context gives the term a further meaning that would- resolve the issue in dispute,” id., at 343-344.
If Robinson were inconsistent with Rowan (on which the Court of Appeals relied), it would be significant that Robinson is the later case, but we read the two as compatible. In Rowan, the question was whether the value of meals and lodging given to employees by an employer for its own convenience should be counted in computing “wages” under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), 26 U. S. C. § 3101 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. IV), and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), 26 U. S. C. § 3301 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. IV). Treasury Regulations made this value “includable in ‘wages’ as defined in FICA and FUTA, even though excludable from ‘wages’ under the substantially identical” statutory definition of “wages” for income-tax withholding purposes. 452 U. S., at 252. Although we ultimately held that the income-tax treatment was the proper one across the board, we did not see it this way simply because a “substantially identical” definition of “wages” appeared in each of the different statutory provisions. Instead, we relied on a manifest “congressional concern for the interest of simplicity and ease of administration.” Id., at 255 (internal quotation marks omitted). The FICA and FUTA regulations fell for failing to “serve that interest,” id., at 257, not for defying definitional identity.
In fact, in a setting much like Rowan, we recently declined to require uniformity when resolving ambiguities in identical statutory terms. In United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U. S. 200 (2001), we rejected the notion that using the phrase “wages paid” in both “the discrete taxation and benefits eligibility contexts” can, standing alone, “compel symmetrical construction,” id., at 213; we gave “substantial judicial deference” to the “longstanding,” “reasonable,” and differing interpretations adopted by the Internal Revenue Service in its regulations and Revenue Rulings. Id., at 218-220. There is, then, no “effectively irrebuttable” presumption that the same defined term in different provisions of the same statute must “be interpreted identically.” 411 F. 3d, at 550. Context counts.
It is true that the Clean Air Act did not merely repeat the term “modification” or the same definition of that word in its NSPS and PSD sections; the PSD language referred back to the section defining “modification” for NSPS purposes. 42 U. S. C. §7479(2)(C).But that did not matter in Robinson, and we do not see the distinction as making any difference here. Nothing in the text or the legislative history of the technical amendments that added the cross-reference to NSPS suggests that Congress had details of regulatory implementation in mind when it imposed PSD requirements on modified sources; the cross-reference alone is certainly no unambiguous congressional code for eliminating the customary agency discretion to resolve questions about a statutory definition by looking to the surroundings of the defined term, where it occurs. See New York, 413 F. 3d, at 19 (“So far as appears,... [this] incorporation by reference [is] the equivalent of Congress’s having simply repeated in the [PSD] context the definitional language used before in the NSPS context”); cf. 91 Stat. 745 (expressly incorporating in an unrelated provision of the 1977 amendments “the interpretative regulation of the [EPA] Administrator . .. published in 41 Federal Register 55524-30” with specified exceptions); New York, supra, at 19 (“Congress’s failure to use such an express incorporation of prior regulations for ‘modification’ cuts against” any suggestion that “Congress intended to incorporate” into the Act the “preexisting regulatory definition” of “modification”). Absent any iron rule to ignore the reasons for regulating PSD and NSPS “modifications” differently, EPA’s construction need do no more than fall within the limits of what is reasonable, as set by the Act’s common definition.
B
The Court of Appeals’s reasoning that the PSD regulations must conform to their NSPS counterparts led the court to read those PSD regulations in a way that seems to us too far a stretch for the language used. The 1980 PSD regulations on “modification” simply cannot be taken to track the Agency’s regulatory definition under the NSPS.
True, the 1980 PSD regulations may be no seamless narrative, but they clearly do not define a “major modification” in terms of an increase in the “hourly emissions rate.” On its face, the definition in the PSD regulations specifies no rate at all, hourly or annual, merely requiring a physical or operational change “that would result in a significant net emissions increase of any” regulated pollutant. 40 CFR § 51.166(b)(2)(i). But even when a rate is mentioned, as in the regulatory definitions of the two terms, “significant” and “net emissions increase,” the rate is annual, not hourly. Each of the thresholds that quantify “significant” is described in “tons per year,” § 51.166(b)(23)(i), and a “net emissions increase” is an “increase in actual emissions” measured against an “average” prior emissions rate of so many “tons per year,” §§51.166(b)(3)(i) and (21)(ii). And what is further at odds with the idea that hourly rate is relevant is the mandate that “[ajctual emissions shall be calculated using the unit’s actual operating hours,” § 51.166(b)(21)(ii), since “actual emissions” must be measured in a manner that looks to the number of hours the unit is or probably will be actually running. What these provisions are getting at is a measure of actual operations averaged over time, and the regulatory language simply cannot be squared with a regime under which “hourly rate of emissions,” 411 F. 3d, at 550 (emphasis deleted), is dispositive.
The reasons invoked by the Court of Appeals for its different view are no match for these textual differences. The appellate court cited two authorities ostensibly demonstrating that the 1980 PSD regulations “can be interpreted consistently” with the hourly emissions test, the first being the analysis of the District Court in this case. Id., at 549, n. 7. The District Court thought that an increase in the hourly emissions rate was necessarily a prerequisite to a PSD “major modification” because a provision of the 1980 PSD regulations excluded an “ ‘increase in the hours of operation or in the production rate’ ” from the scope of “ ‘[a] physical change or change in the method of operation.’ ” 278 F. Supp. 2d, at 640-641 (quoting 40 CFR §§51.166(b)(2)(iii)(/) and (3)(i)(a) (1987)). The District Court read this exclusion to require, in effect, that a source’s hours of operation “be held constant” when preproject emissions are being compared with postproject emissions for the purpose of calculating the “net emissions increase.” 278 F. Supp. 2d, at 640.
We think this understanding of the 1980 PSD regulations makes the mistake of overlooking the difference between the two separate components of the regulatory definition of “major modification”: “[1] any physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that [2] would result in a significant net emissions increase of any pollutant subject to regulation under the Act.” § 51.166(b)(2)(i); cf. New York, 413 F. 3d, at 11 (“[The statutory] definition requires both a change — whether physical or operational — and a resulting increase in emissions of a pollutant” (emphasis in original)); Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Reilly, 893 F. 2d 901, 907 (CA7 1990) (same). The exclusion of “increase in . . . hours . . . or . . . production rate,” §51.166(b)(2)(iii)(/), speaks to the first of these components (“physical change ... or change in . . . method,” § 51.166(b)(2)(i)), but not to the second (“significant net emissions increase,” ibid.). As the preamble to the 1980 PSD regulations explains, forcing companies to obtain a PSD permit before they could simply adjust operating hours “would severely and unduly hamper the ability of any company to take advantage of favorable market conditions.” 45 Fed. Reg. 52704. In other words, a mere increase in the hours of operation, standing alone, is not a “physical change or change in the method of operation.” 40 CFR §51.166(b)(2)(iii).
But the District Court took this language a step further. It assumed that increases in operating hours (resulting in emissions increases at the old rate per hour) must be ignored even if caused or enabled by an independent “physical change ... or change in the method of operation.” §51.166(b)(2)(i). That reading, however, turns an exception to the first component of the definition into a mandate to ignore the very facts that would count under the second, which defines “net emissions increase” in terms of “actual emissions,” §51.166(b)(3)(i), during “the unit’s actual operating hours,” § 51.166(b)(21)(ii); see also 57 Fed. Reg. 32328 (1992) (“[A]n increase in emissions attributable to an increase in hours of operation or production rate which is the result of a construction-related activity is not excluded from [PSD] review .. . ”).
The Court of Appeals invoked one other source of support, the suggestion in the Reich opinions that a physical or operational change increasing a source’s hours of operation, without an increase in the hourly emissions rate, cannot be a PSD “major modification.” Duke continues to rely on those opinions here, asserting that “there are no contrary Agency pronouncements.” Brief for Respondent Duke 28. The Reich letters are not, however, heavy ammunition. Their persuasiveness is elusive, neither of them containing more than one brief and conelusory statement supporting Duke’s position. Nor, it seems, are they unembarrassed by any “contrary Agency pronouncements.” See, e.g., App. 258 (Memorandum of Don R. Clay, Acting Assistant EPA Administrator for Air and Radiation (Sept. 9,1988) (when “plans to increase production rate or hours of operation are inextricably intertwined with the physical changes planned,” they are “precisely the type of change in hours or rate o[f] operation that would disturb a prior assessment of a source’s environmental impact and should have to undergo PSD review scrutiny” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted))); see also 57 Fed. Reg. 32328. In any event, it answers the citation of the Reich letters to realize that an isolated opinion of an agency official does not authorize a court to read a regulation inconsistently with its language.
In sum, the text of the 1980 PSD regulations on “modification” doomed the Court of Appeals’s attempt to equate those regulations with their NSPS counterpart. As a consequence, we have to see the Court of Appeals’s construction of the 1980 PSD regulations as an implicit invalidation of those regulations, a form of judicial review implicating the provisions of § 307(b) of the Act, which limit challenges to the validity of a regulation during enforcement proceedings when such review “could have been obtained” in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of EPA rulemaking. See 42 U. S. C. § 7607(b); see also United States v. Cinergy Corp., 458 F. 3d 705, 707-708 (CA7 2006); Wisconsin Elec. Power Co., 893 F. 2d, at 914, n. 6. Because the Court of Appeals did not believe that its analysis reached validity, it did not consider the applicability or effect of that limitation here. We have no occasion at this point to consider the significance of § 307(b) ourselves.
IV
Finally, Duke assumes for argument that the Act and the 1980 regulations may authorize EPA to construe a PSD “modification” as it has done, but it charges that the agency has taken inconsistent positions and is now “retroactively targeting twenty years of accepted practice.” Brief for Respondent Duke 37; see also Brief for State of Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae. This claim, too, has not been tackled by the District Court or the Court of Appeals; to the extent it is not procedurally foreclosed, Duke may press it on remand.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
EPA’s 1975 NSPS regulations did not specify that the “rate” means the maximum rate possible for the technology, see 40 CFR §§60.14(aHb) (1977), but the parties all read the regulations this way. See Brief for Petitioners 2; Brief for United States 7; Brief for Respondent Duke 32. At another point in the NSPS regulations, a different definition of “modification” appeared: “‘Modification’ means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, an existing facility which increases the amount of any air pollutant (to which a standard applies) emitted into the atmosphere by that facility,” § 60.2(h); see also New York v. EPA, 413 F. 3d 3,11-12 (CADC 2005) (per curiam) (“[N]either the 1975 regulation nor its preamble explained why EPA found it necessary to offer these two separate glosses on ‘modification’ ”).
Statutory PSD superseded a regulatory PSD scheme established by EPA in 1974. See 39 Fed. Reg. 42510. Under the regulations, the term “modification” was defined as “any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the emission rate of any pollutant for which a national standard has been promulgated.” Id., at 42514.
Although EPA had promulgated an earlier set of PSD regulations in 1978, 43 Fed. Reg. 26380, none of the parties argues that they govern the conduct at issue in this case.
The United States argues that some of Duke’s projects were governed by EPA’s PSD regulations promulgated in 1992 rather than the 1980 PSD regulations. Brief for United States 20, n. 4. Duke disputes this. Brief for Respondent Duke 14, n. 4. Because the United States acknowledges that the two sets of regulations “did not materially differ with respect to the legal question at issue here,” Brief for United States 20, n. 4, we will assume, as did the Court of Appeals and the District Court, that the 1980 PSD regulations control. 411 F. 3d, at 543, n. 1; United States v. Duke Energy Corp., 278 F. Supp. 2d 619, 629 (MDNC 2003).
The Court of Appeals noted that EPA was free to abandon the requirement that a “modification” be accompanied by an increase in the hourly rate of emissions, provided it did so for both the NSPS and PSD programs. 411 F. 3d, at 550-551. In other words, the Court of Appeals raised no question about the reasonableness of the definition of “modification” in the 1980 PSD regulations, apart from its deviation from the definition contained in NSPS regulations.
Duke argues that the 1977 amendments intended to incorporate EPA’s definition of “modification” under the 1974 regulatory PSD program. Brief for Respondent Duke 44; see also n. 2, supra. We find no support for this argument in the statutory text, which refers to the statutory NSPS definition rather than the regulatory PSD definition. Although Duke correctly points out that “Congress instructed that the bulk of the pre-existing rules ‘shall remain in effect,’ ” Brief for Respondent Duke 44 (quoting 42 U. S. C. § 7478(a)), this instruction was a temporary measure “[u]ntil such time as an applicable implementation plan is in effect,” § 7478(a). We therefore do not read this language as a restriction on EPA’s authority to interpret the statutory PSD provisions reasonably in a manner that departs from the 1974 regulations. Duke also invokes Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U. S. 624, 631 (1998), for the proposition that “use of the pre-existing term ‘modification’ ‘carries the implication that Congress intended the term to be construed in accordance with pre-existing regulatory interpretations.’” Brief for Respondent Duke 44. But this reasoning is unavailing here, given the existence of at least three distinct regulatory definitions of “modification” at the time of the 1977 amendments. See swpra, at 567-568, and nn. 1, 2.
Two Courts of Appeals agree. See United States v. Cinergy Corp., 458 F. 3d 705, 708 (CA7 2006) (“[M]erely running the plant closer to its maximum capacity is not a major modification because it does not involve either a physical change or a change in the method of operation. If, however, a physical change enables the plant to increase its output, then, according to the EPA’s interpretation, the exclusion for merely operating the plant for longer hours is inapplicable” (emphasis in original)); Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Reilly, 893 F. 2d 901, 916, n. 11 (CA7 1990) (the regulatory exclusion for increases in the hours of operation “was provided to allow facilities to take advantage of fluctuating market conditions, not construction or modification activity”); Puerto Rican Cement Co. v. EPA, 889 F. 2d 292, 298 (CA1 1989) (“[TJhere is no logical contradiction in rules that, on the one hand, permit firms using existing capacity simply to increase their output and, on the other, use the potential output of new capacity as a basis for calculating an increase in emissions levels” (emphasis in original)).
Duke now offers an alternative argument for applying the hourly emissions test for the PSD program: before a project can become a “major modification” under the PSD regulations, 40 CFR § 51.166(b)(2)® (1987), it must meet the definition of “modification” under the NSPS regulations, § 60.14(a). That sounds right, but the language of the regulations does not support it. For example, it would be superfluous for PSD regulations to require a “major modification” to be a “physical change in or change in the method of operation,” § 51.166(b)(2)®, if they presupposed that the NSPS definition of “modification,” which contains the same prerequisite, § 60.14(a), had already been satisfied. The NSPS and PSD regulations are complementary and not related as set to subset. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded. | What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"modify",
"remand",
"unusual disposition"
] | [
1
] | sc |
NYNEX CORP. et al. v. DISCON, INC.
No. 96-1570.
Argued October 5,1998
Decided December 14, 1998
James R. Young argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were John Thorne, Richard G. Taranto, Guy Miller Struve, James D. Liss, and Vincent T Chang.
Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Klein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Melamed, Barbara McDowell, Catherine G. O’Sullivan, Mark S. Po-pofsky, and Debra A. Valentine.
Lawrence C. Brown argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John H. Ring III.
Briefs of amid curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Automobile Manufacturers Association by Stephen M. Shapiro, Roy T. Englert, Jr., Donald M. Falk, and Mark Slywynsky; for the Business Roundtable by Thomas B. Leary and Robert C. Weinbaum; for GTE Corporation by Christopher Landau, Paul T. Cappuccio, William P. Barr, and M. Edward Whelan III; and for the Association of the Bar of the City of New York by Richard M. Sternr. Professors
Mark R. Patterson and Stephen F. Ross filed a brief for Law Professors as amid curiae urging affirmance.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this ease we ask whether the antitrust rule that group boycotts are illegal per se as set forth in Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U. S. 207, 212 (1959), applies to a buyer’s decision to buy from one seller rather than another, when that decision cannot be justified in terms of ordinary competitive objectives. We hold that the per se group boycott rule does not apply.
í — I
Before 1984 American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) supplied most of the Nation’s telephone service and, through wholly owned subsidiaries such as Western Electric, it also supplied much of the Nation’s telephone equipment. In 1984 an antitrust consent decree took AT&T out of the local telephone service business and left AT&T a long-distance telephone service provider, competing with such firms as MCI and Sprint. See M. Kellogg, J. Thorne, & P. Huber, Federal Telecommunications Law §4.6, p. 221 (1992). The decree transformed AT&T's formerly owned local telephone companies into independent firms. At the same time, the decree insisted that those local firms help assure competitive long-distance service by guaranteeing long-distance companies physical access to their systems and to their local customers. See United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 225, 227 (DC 1982), aff’d sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U. S. 1001 (1983). To guarantee that physical access, some local telephone firms had to install new call-switching equipment; and to install new call-switching equipment, they often had to remove old call-switching equipment. This ease involves the business of removing that old switching equipment (and other obsolete telephone equipment) — a business called “removal services”
Diseon, Inc., the respondent, sold removal services used by New York Telephone Company, a firm supplying local telephone service in much of New York State and parts of Connecticut. New York Telephone is a subsidiary of NYNEX Corporation. NYNEX also owns Materiel Enterprises Company, a purchasing entity that bought removal services for New York Telephone. Diseon, in a lengthy detailed complaint, alleged that the NYNEX defendants (namely, NYNEX, New York Telephone, Materiel Enterprises, and several NYNEX related individuals) engaged in unfair, improper, and anticompetitive activities in order to hurt Diseon and to benefit Discon’s removal services competitor, AT&T Technologies, a lineal descendant of Western Electric. The Federal District Court dismissed Discon’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that dismissal with an exception, and that exception is before us for consideration.
The Second Circuit focused on one of Discon’s specific claims, a claim that Materiel Enterprises had switched its purchases from Diseon to Discon’s competitor, AT&T Technologies, as part of an attempt to defraud local telephone serviee customers by hoodwinking regulators. According to Discon, Materiel Enterprises would pay AT&T Technologies more than Discon would have charged for similar removal services. It did so because it could pass the higher prices on to New York Telephone, which in turn could pass those prices on to telephone consumers in the form of higher regulatory-agency-approved telephone service charges. At the end of the year, Materiel Enterprises would receive a special rebate from AT&T Technologies, which Materiel Enterprises would share with its parent, NYNEX. Discon added that it refused to participate in this fraudulent scheme, with the result that Materiel Enterprises would not buy from Discon, and Discon went out of business.
These allegations, the Second Circuit said, state a cause of action under §1 of the Sherman Act, though under a “different legal theory” from the one articulated by Discon. 93 F. 3d 1055, 1060 (1996). The Second Circuit conceded that ordinarily “the decision to discriminate in favor of one supplier over another will have a pro-competitive intent and effect.” Id., at 1061. But, it added, in this case, “no such pro-competitive rationale appears on the face of the complaint.” Ibid. Rather, the complaint alleges Materiel Enterprises’ decision to buy from AT&T Technologies, rather than from Discon, was intended to be, and was, “anti-competitive.” Ibid. Hence, “Diseon has alleged a cause of action under, at least, the rule of reason, and possibly under the per se rule applied to group boycotts in Klor’s, if the restraint of trade ‘“has no purpose except stifling competition.’”” Ibid, (quoting Oreck Corp. v. Whirlpool Corp., 579 F. 2d 126, 131 (CA2) (en banc) (in turn quoting White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U. S. 253, 263 (1963)), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 946 (1978)). For somewhat similar reasons the Second Circuit believed the complaint stated a valid claim of conspiracy to monopolize under §2 of the Sherman Act. See 93 F. 3d, at 1061-1062.
The Second Circuit noted that the Courts of Appeals are uncertain as to whether, or when, the per se group boycott rule applies to a decision by a purchaser to favor one supplier over another (which the Second Circuit called a “two-firm group boycott”). Compare Com-Tel, Inc. v. DuKane Corp., 669 F. 2d 404, 411-413, and nn. 13, 16 (CA6 1982); Cascade Cabinet Co. v. Western Cabinet & Millwork Inc., 710 F. 2d 1366, 1370-1371 (CA9 1983), with Construction Aggregate Transport, Inc. v. Florida Rock Industries, Inc., 710 F. 2d 752, 776-778 (CA11 1983). We granted certiorari in order to consider the applicability of the per se group boycott rule where a single buyer favors one seller over another, albeit for an improper reason.
II
As this Court has made clear, the Sherman Act’s prohibition of “[e]very” agreement in “restraint of trade,” 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1, prohibits only agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. See Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U. S. 717, 723 (1988) (citing National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85, 98 (1984)); Standard Oil Co. of N. J. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 59-62 (1911); 2 P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 320b, p. 49 (1995). Yet certain kinds of agreements will so often prove so harmful to competition and so rarely prove justified that the antitrust laws do not require proof that an agreement of that kind is, in fact, anticompetitive in the particular circumstances. See State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3, 10 (1997); Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U. S. 284, 289-290 (1985); 2 Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶ 320b, at 49-52. An agreement of such a kind is unlawful per se. See, e.g., United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 218 (1940) (finding horizontal price-fixing agreement per se illegal); Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, 408 (1911) (finding vertical price-fixing agreement per se illegal); Palmer v. BRG of Ga., Inc., 498 U. S. 46, 49-50 (1990) (per curiam) (finding horizontal market division per se illegal).
The Court has found the per se rule applicable in certain group boycott eases. Thus, in Fashion Originators’ Guild of America, Inc. v. FTC, 312 U. S. 457 (1941), this Court considered a group boycott created by an agreement among a group of clothing designers, manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers. The defendant designers, manufacturers, and suppliers had promised not to sell their clothes to retailers who bought clothes from competing manufacturers and suppliers. The defendants wanted to present evidence that would show their agreement was justified because the boycotted competitors used “pira[ted]” fashion designs. Id., at 467. But the Court wrote that “it was not error to refuse to hear the evidence offered” — evidence that the agreement was reasonable and necessary to “protect. . . against the devastating evils” of design pirating — for that evidence “is no more material than would be the reasonableness of the prices fixed” by a price-fixing agreement. Id., at 467-468.
In Klor’s the Court also applied the per se rule. The Court considered a boycott created when a retail store, Broadway-Hale, and 10 household appliance manufacturers and their distributors agreed that the distributors would not sell, or would sell only at discriminatory prices, household appliances to Broadway-Hale’s small, nearby competitor, namely, Klor’s. 359 U. S., at 208-209. The defendants had submitted undisputed evidence that their agreement hurt only one competitor (Klor’s) and that so many other nearby appliance-selling competitors remained that competition in the marketplace continued to thrive. Id., at 209-210. The Court held that this evidence was beside the point. The conspiracy was “not to be tolerated merely because the victim is just one merchant.” Id., at 213. The Court thereby inferred injury to the competitive process itself from the nature of the boycott agreement. And it forbade, as a matter of law, a defense based upon a claim that only one small firm, not competition itself, had suffered injury.
The case before us involves Klor’s. The Second Circuit did not forbid the defendants to introduce evidence of “justification.” To the contrary, it invited the defendants to do so, for it said that the “per se rule” would apply only if no “pro-competitive justification” were to be found. 93 E 3d, at 1061; cf. 7 P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law f 1510, p. 416 (1986) (“Boycotts are said to be unlawful per se but justifications are routinely considered in defining the forbidden category”)- Thus, the specific legal question before us is whether an antitrust court considering an agreement by a buyer to purchase goods or services from one supplier rather than another should (after examining the buyer’s reasons or justifications) apply the per se rule if it finds no legitimate business reason for that purchasing decision. We conclude no boycott-related per se rule applies and that the plaintiff here must allege and prove harm, not just to a single competitor, but to the competitive process, i. e., to competition itself.
Our conclusion rests in large part upon precedent, for precedent limits the per se rule in the boycott context to cases involving horizontal agreements among direct competitors. The agreement in Fashion Originators’ Guild involved what may be called a group boycott in the strongest sense: A group of competitors threatened to withhold business from third parties unless those third parties would help them injure their directly competing rivals. Although Klor’s involved a threat made by a single powerful firm, it also involved a horizontal agreement among those threatened, namely, the appliance suppliers, to hurt a competitor of the retailer who made the threat. See 359 U. S., at 208-209; see also P. Areeda & L. Kaplow, Antitrust Analysis: Problems, Text, and Cases 333 (5th ed. 1997) (defining paradigmatic boycott as “collective action among a group of competitors that may inhibit the competitive vitality of rivals”); 11H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1901e, pp. 189-190 (1998). This Court emphasized in Klor’s that the agreement at issue was
“not a ease of a single trader refusing to deal with, another, nor even of a manufacturer and a dealer agreeing to an exclusive distributorship. Alleged in this complaint is a wide combination consisting of manufacturers, distributors and a retailer.” 859 U. S., at 212-213 (footnote omitted).
This Court subsequently pointed out specifically that Klor’s was a ease involving not simply a “vertical” agreement between supplier and customer, but a case that also involved a “horizontal” agreement among competitors. See Business Electronics, 485 U. S., at 734. And in doing so, the Court held that a “vertical restraint is not illegal per se unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels.” Id., at 735-736. This precedent makes the per se rule inapplicable, for the case before us concerns only a vertical agreement and a vertical restraint, a restraint that takes the form of depriving a supplier of a potential customer. See 11 Hovenkamp, supra, ¶ 1902d, at 198.
We have not found any special feature of this case that could distinguish it from the precedent we have just discussed. We concede Diseon’s claim that the petitioners’ behavior hurt consumers by raising telephone service rates. But that consumer injury naturally flowed not so much from a less competitive market for removal services, as from the exercise of market power that is lawfully in the hands of a monopolist, namely, New York Telephone, combined with a deception worked upon the regulatory agency that prevented the agency from controlling New York Telephone’s exercise of its monopoly power.
To apply the per se rule here — where the buyer’s decision, though not made for competitive reasons, composes part of a regulatory fraud — would transform eases involving business behavior that is improper for various reasons, say, cases involving nepotism or personal pique, into treble-damages antitrust eases. And that per se rule would discourage firms from changing suppliers — even where the competitive process itself does not suffer harm. Cf. Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U. S. 464, 484 (1962) (Harlan, J., dissenting) (citing Packard Motor Car Co. v. Webster Motor Car Co., 243 F. 2d 418, 421 (CADC 1957)).
The freedom to switch suppliers lies close to the heart of the competitive process that the antitrust laws seek to encourage. Cf. Standard Oil, 221 U. S., at 62 (noting “the freedom of the individual right to contract when not unduly or improperly exercised [is] the most efficient means for the prevention of monopoly”). At the same time, other laws, for example, “unfair competition” laws, business tort laws, or regulatory laws, provide remedies for various “competitive practices thought to be offensive to proper standards of business morality.” 3 P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 651d, p. 78 (1996). Thus, this Court has refused to apply per se reasoning in cases involving that kind of activity. See Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U. S. 209, 225 (1993) (“Even an act of pure malice by one business competitor against another does not, without more, state a claim under the federal antitrust laws”); 3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶ 651d, at 80 (“[I]n the presence of substantial market power, some kinds of tortious behavior could anticompetitively create or sustain a monopoly, [but] it is wrong categorically to condemn such practices ... or categorically to excuse them”).
Discon points to another special feature of its complaint, namely, its claim that Materiel Enterprises hoped to drive Discon from the market lest Diseon reveal its behavior to New York Telephone or to the relevant regulatory agency. That hope, says Discon, amounts to a special anticompeti-tive motive.
We do not see how the presence of this special motive, however, could make a significant difference. That motive does not turn Materiel Enterprises’ actions into a “boycott” within the meaning of this Court’s precedents. See supra, at 135-136. Nor, for that matter, do we understand how Diseon believes the motive affected Materiel Enterprises’ behavior. Why would Discon’s demise have made Diseon’s employees less likely, rather than more likely, to report the overcharge/rebate scheme to telephone regulators? Regardless, a per se rule that would turn upon a showing that a defendant not only knew about but also hoped for a firm’s demise would create a legal distinction — between corporate knowledge and corporate motive — that does not necessarily correspond to behavioral differences and which would be difficult to prove, making the resolution of already complex antitrust cases yet more difficult. We cannot find a convincing reason why the presence of this special motive should lead to the application of the per se rule.
Finally, we shall consider an argument that is related tangentially to Discon’s per se claims. The complaint alleges that New York Telephone (through Materiel Enterprises) was the largest buyer of removal services in New York State, see Amended Complaint ¶¶2, 29, 99, App. 75, 83, 110, and that only AT&T Technologies competed for New York Telephone’s business, see ¶¶2, 26, 29, id., at 75, 82-83. One might ask whether these accompanying allegations are sufficient to warrant application of a Klor’s-type presumption of consequent harm to the competitive process itself.
We believe that these allegations do not do so, for, as we have said, see supra, at 135-136, antitrust law does not permit the application of the per se rule in the boycott context in the absence of a horizontal agreement, though in other contexts, say, vertical price fixing, conduct may fall within the scope of a per se rule not at issue here, see, e. g., Dr. Miles Medical Co., 220 U. S., at 408. The complaint itself explains why any such presumption would be particularly inappropriate here, for it suggests the presence of other potential or actual competitors, which fact, in the circumstances, could argue against the likelihood of anti-competitive harm. The complaint says, for example, that New York Telephone itself was a potential competitor in that New York Telephone considered removing its equipment by itself, and in fact did perform a few jobs itself. See ¶27, App. 83. The complaint also suggests that other nearby small local telephone companies needing removal services must have worked out some way to supply them. See ¶ 53, id., at 91. The complaint’s description of the removal business suggests that entry was easy, perhaps to the point where other firms, employing workers who knew how to remove a switch and sell it for scrap, might have entered that business almost at will. Cf. ¶ 27, id., at 83. To that extent, the complaint suggests other actual or potential competitors might have provided roughly similar checks upon “equipment removal” prices and services with or without Diseon. At the least, the complaint provides no sound basis for assuming the contrary. Its simple allegation of harm to Discon does not automatically show injury to competition.
1 — 4 h-i í — l
The Court of Appeals also upheld the complaint’s charge of a conspiracy to monopolize in violation of §2 of the Sherman Act. It did so, however, on the understanding that the conspiracy in question consisted of the very same purchasing practices that we have previously discussed. Unless those agreements harmed the competitive process, they did not amount to a conspiracy to monopolize. We do not see, on the basis of the facts alleged, how Discon could succeed on this claim without prevailing on its §1 claim. See 3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶ 651e, at 81-82. Given our conclusion that Discon has not alleged a § 1 per se violation, we think it prudent to vacate this portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision and allow the court to reconsider its finding of a §2 claim.
IV
Petitioners ask us to reach beyond the “per se” issues and to hold that Discon’s complaint does not allege anywhere that their purchasing decisions harmed the competitive process itself and, for this reason, it should be dismissed. They note that Discon has not pointed to any paragraph of the complaint that alleges harm to the competitive process. This matter, however, lies outside the questions presented for certiorari. Those questions were limited to the application of the per se rule. For that reason, we believe petitioners cannot raise that argument in this Court.
V
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence. | What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision? | [
"judicial review (national level)",
"judicial review (state level)",
"Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction",
"statutory construction",
"interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order",
"diversity jurisdiction",
"federal common law"
] | [
3
] | sc |
DUNCAN, WARDEN v. HENRY
No. 94-941.
Decided January 23, 1995
Per Curiam.
Respondent, a rector and dean of a church day school, was tried and convicted in state court of sexually molesting a 5-year-old student. At trial, respondent objected to testimony by the parent of another child who claimed to have been molested 20 years previously. His objection was based on Cal. Evid. Code Ann. §352 (West 1966). On direct appeal, he pursued his evidentiary objection and requested the appellate court to find that the error was a “miscarriage of justice” under the California Constitution. California applies this provision in determining whether or not an error was harmless. People v. Watson, 46 Cal. 2d 818, 299 P. 2d 243 (1956). The California Court of Appeal found the error harmless and affirmed respondent’s conviction. People v. Henry, No. CR23041 (2d Dist. 1990), App. D to Pet. for Cert. 6.
Respondent then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court, alleging that the evidentiary error amounted to a denial of due process under the United States Constitution. The District Court granted the petition and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Henry v. Estelle, 33 F. 3d 1037 (1994). The court held that respondent had exhausted his state remedies even though he had not claimed a violation of any federal constitutional right in the state proceedings:
“In his direct appeal in state court, Henry did not label his claim a federal due process violation; he argued rather that Hackett’s testimony was erroneously admitted because irrelevant and inflammatory, and that its admission resulted in a ‘miscarriage of justice’ under the California Constitution. However, to state a federal due process claim it is not necessary to invoke ‘the talis-manie phrase “due process of law”’ or cite ‘book and verse on the federal constitution’ . . . .” Id., at 1040 (citations omitted).
In Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 275 (1971), we said that exhaustion of state remedies requires that petitioners “fairly presen[t]” federal claims to the state courts in order to give the State the “ ‘opportunity to pass upon and correct’ alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights” (some internal quotation marks omitted). If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an eviden-tiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal court, but in state court. Accord, Anderson v. Harless, 459 U. S. 4 (1982).
Picard and Harless control the outcome in this case. Respondent did not apprise the state court of his claim that the evidentiary ruling of which he complained was not only a violation of state law, but denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The failure is especially pronounced in that respondent did specifically raise a due process objection before the state court based on a different claim — that the pleading was uncertain as to when the offense occurred. App. D to Pet. for Cert. 8. The California Court of Appeal analyzed the evidentiary error by asking whether its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, not whether it was so inflammatory as to prevent a fair trial. 33 F. 3d, at 1046. As recognized by dissenting Judge Brunetti, those standards are no more than “‘somewhat similar,’” id., at 1047, not “virtually identical” as claimed by Justice Stevens, post, at 369. Both Picard and Harless emphasized that mere similarity of claims is insufficient to exhaust. Picard, supra, at 276; Harless, supra, at 6. The state court, when presented with respondent’s claim of error under the California Evidentiary Code, understandably confined its analysis to the application of state law.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Justice Souter,
with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join,
concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment because respondent’s “miscarriage of justice” claim in state court was reasonably understood to raise a state-law issue of prejudice, not a federal issue of due process. Consequently, no federal claim was “fairly presented to the state courts” within the meaning of Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 275 (1971). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the disposition of the case, that is, the treatment the Supreme Court accorded the court whose decision it reviewed. The information relevant to this variable may be found near the end of the summary that begins on the title page of each case, or preferably at the very end of the opinion of the Court. For cases in which the Court granted a motion to dismiss, consider "petition denied or appeal dismissed". There is "no disposition" if the Court denied a motion to dismiss. | What is the disposition of the case, that is, the treatment the Supreme Court accorded the court whose decision it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed (includes modified)",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"certification to or from a lower court",
"no disposition"
] | [
2
] | sc |
ROBINSON v. NEIL, WARDEN
No. 71-6272.
Argued December 6, 1972
Decided January 16, 1973
Rehnquist, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Brennan, J., filed a separate opinion, in which Douglas and Marshall, JJ., joined, post, p. 511.
James D. Robinson argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Jerry H. Summers.
Bart C. Durham III, Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were David M. Pack, Attorney General, and William C. Koch, Jr., Assistant Attorney General.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1962 petitioner was tried and convicted in the Chattanooga municipal court of three counts of assault and battery in violation of a city ordinance. He was fined $50 and costs on each count. He was later indicted by the grand jury of Hamilton County, Tennessee, which, out of the same circumstances giving rise to the municipal trial, charged him with three offenses of assault with intent to commit murder in violation of state law. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the state charges and received consecutive sentences of three to 10 years for two offenses and three to five years for the third offense. He is presently in the custody of the respondent warden of the Tennessee State Penitentiary.
In 1966 the petitioner unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus relief in state courts on the ground that the second convictions for state offenses violated his federal constitutional guarantee against twice being placed in jeopardy for the same offense. In 1967 federal courts denied a similar request for habeas corpus relief. Robinson v. Henderson, 268 F. Supp. 349 (ED Tenn. 1967), aff’d, 391 F. 2d 933 (CA6 1968). In 1970 the petitioner renewed his claims for habeas relief, basing his arguments on this Court’s intervening decisions in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), and Waller v. Florida, 397 U. S. 387 (1970). Holding that Waller was to be accorded retrospective effect, the District Court granted the petitioner habeas corpus relief. 320 F. Supp. 894 (ED Tenn. 1971). The Sixth Circuit reversed (452 F. 2d 370 (1971)) and we granted certiorari to decide the retroactivity of Waller v. Florida. 406 U. S. 916 (1972).
The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that no person be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense was first held binding on the States in Benton v. Maryland, supra. Our subsequent decision in Waller v. Florida, supra, held that the scope of this guarantee precluded the recognition of the “dual sovereignty” doctrine with respect to separate state and municipal prosecutions. Waller involved the theft of a mural from the City Hall of St. Petersburg, Florida. The petitioner there was first tried and convicted of violating city ordinances with respect to the destruction of city property and breach of the peace. Subsequently, he was convicted of grand larceny in violation of state law involving the same theft. The Court stated:
“the Florida courts were in error to the extent of holding that—
“ 'even if a person has been tried in a municipal court for the identical offense with which he is charged in a state court, this would not be a bar to the prosecution of such person in the proper state court.’ ” 397 U. S., at 395.
Prior to this Court’s 1965 decision in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, there would have been less doubt concerning the retroactivity of the Waller holding. For, until that time, both the common law and our own decisions recognized a general rule of retrospective effect for the constitutional decisions of this Court, e. g., Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425, 442 (1886), subject to limited exceptions of a nature such as those stated in Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U. S. 371 (1940). In Linkletter, the Court, declaring that it was charting new ground (381 U. S., at 628 and n. 13), held that with respect to new constitutional interpretations involving criminal rights “the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires retrospective effect.” Id., at 629. Linkletter and succeeding cases established a set of factors for determining which constitutional rules were to be accorded retrospective and which prospective effect only. The District Court and the Sixth Circuit in this case applied the factors enunciated by these cases to the Waller holding. The Sixth Circuit held, contrary to the conclusion of the District Court, that Waller is not to be applied retroactively.
We do not believe that this case readily lends itself to the analysis established in Linkletter. Certainly, there is nothing in Linkletter or those cases following it to indicate that all rules and constitutional interpretations arising under the first eight Amendments must be subjected to the analysis there enunciated. Linkletter itself announced an exception to the general rule of retro-activity in a decision announcing that the exclusionary rule of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), would be given prospective effect only. Linkletter, and the other cases relied upon by the Sixth Circuit, dealt with those constitutional interpretations bearing on the use of evidence or on a particular mode of trial. Those procedural rights and methods of conducting trials, however, do not encompass all of the rights found in the first eight Amendments. Guarantees that do not relate to these procedural rules cannot, for retroactivity purposes, be lumped conveniently together in terms of analysis. For the purpose and effect of the various constitutional guarantees vary sufficiently among themselves so as to affect the necessity for prospective rather than retrospective application.
Linkletter indicated, for instance, that only those procedural rules affecting “the very integrity of the fact-finding process” would be given retrospective effect. 381 U. S., at 639. In terms of some nonprocedural guarantees, this test is simply not appropriate. In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972), for example, this Court held that in the situation there presented imposition of the death penalty was not constitutionally permissible. Yet, while this holding does not affect the integrity of the factfinding process, we have not hesitated to apply it retrospectively without regard to whether the rule meets the Linkletter criteria. E. g., Walker v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 936.
The prohibition against being placed in double jeopardy is likewise not readily susceptible of analysis under the Linkletter line of cases. Although the Court has not handed down a fully reasoned opinion on the retro-activity of Benton v. Maryland, it has indicated that it is retroactive without examination of the Linkletter criteria. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969); Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 437 n. 1 (1970). These decisions do not directly control the question of whether Waller should be given retrospective effect but they bear upon its disposition.
The guarantee against double jeopardy is significantly different from procedural guarantees held in the Link-letter line of cases to have prospective effect only. While this guarantee, like the others, is a constitutional right of the criminal defendant, its practical result is to prevent a trial from taking place at all, rather than to prescribe procedural rules that govern the conduct of a trial. A number of the constitutional rules applied prospectively only under the Linkletter cases were found not to affect the basic fairness of the earlier trial, but to have been directed instead to collateral purposes such as the deterrence of unlawful police conduct, Mapp v. Ohio, supra. In Waller, however, the Court’s ruling was squarely directed to the prevention of the second trial’s taking place at all, even though it might have been conducted with a scrupulous regard for all of the constitutional procedural rights of the defendant.
We would not suggest that the distinction that we draw is an ironclad one that will invariably result in the easy classification of cases in one category or the other. The element of reliance embodied in the Link-letter analysis will not be wholly absent in the case of constitutional decisions not related to trial procedure, as indeed this case when contrasted with Furman illustrates.
In Furman v. Georgia, supra, our mandate was tailored so as to deny to the State only the authority to impose a punishment that we held unconstitutional, without the necessity of a redetermination of the factual question of whether the offense had in fact been committed. Thus, the prejudice to the State resulting from the necessity of an entirely new trial because of procedures newly found to be constitutionally defective, with the attendant difficulties of again assembling witnesses whose memories would of necessity be dimmer for the second trial than for the first, was not present. That which was constitutionally invalid could be isolated and excised without requiring the State to begin the entire factfinding process anew.
The application of Waller retrospectively may, on the other hand, result in a form of prejudice to the State because, in reliance upon the “dual sovereignty” analogy, the municipal prosecution may have occurred first and the sentence already have been served prior to the commencement of the state prosecution. If the offense involved was a serious one under state law, as it apparently was in this case, the defendant may have been unintentionally accorded a relatively painless form of immunity from the state prosecution. But the Court’s opinion in Waller makes clear that the analogy between state and municipal prosecutions, and federal and state prosecutions permitted in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), had never been sanctioned by this Court and was not analytically sound. Since the issue did not assume federal constitutional proportions until after Benton v. Maryland held the Double Jeopardy Clause applicable to the States, this Court had not earlier had occasion to squarely pass on the issue. But its decision in Waller cannot be said to have marked a departure from past decisions of this Court. Therefore, while Waller-type cases may involve a form of practical prejudice to the State over and above the refusal to permit the trial that the Constitution bars, the justifiability of the State’s reliance on lower court decisions supporting the dual sovereignty analogy was a good deal more dubious than the justification for reliance that has been given weight in our Linkletter line of cases. We intimate no view as to what weight should be accorded to reliance by the State that was justifiable under the Linkletter test in determining retroactivity of a non-procedural constitutional decision such as Waller.
We hold, therefore, that our decision in Waller v. Florida is to be accorded full retroactive effect. We refrain from an outright reversal of the judgment below, however, because statements of counsel at oral argument raised the issue of whether the state and municipal prosecutions were actually for the same offense. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case so that respondent may have an opportunity to present this issue there or in the District Court.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Brennan, with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall concur.
Although I otherwise join the opinion of the Court, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals outright. I adhere to my view that, regardless of the similarity of the offenses, the Double Jeopardy Glause of the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), requires the prosecution, except in most limited circumstances not present here, “to join at one trial all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring); see Grubb v. Oklahoma, post, p. 1017 (1972) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Miller v. Oregon, 405 U. S. 1047 (1972) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Harris v. Washington, 404 U. S. 55, 57 (1971) (separate statement of Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall, JJ.). Under this “same transaction” test, all charges against petitioner should have been brought in a single prosecution.
See Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244 (1969), which carefully examined all of the eases decided since Linkletter and more fully enunciated the guiding criteria of those cases. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the reason, if any, given by the court for granting the petition for certiorari. | What reason, if any, does the court give for granting the petition for certiorari? | [
"case did not arise on cert or cert not granted",
"federal court conflict",
"federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question",
"putative conflict",
"conflict between federal court and state court",
"state court conflict",
"federal court confusion or uncertainty",
"state court confusion or uncertainty",
"federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty",
"to resolve important or significant question",
"to resolve question presented",
"no reason given",
"other reason"
] | [
10
] | sc |
BROWNELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, v. SINGER.
NO. 401.
Argued March 8, 1954.
Decided April 5, 1954.
James D. Hill argued the cause for petitioner in No. 401. With him on the brief were Robert L. Stern, then Acting Solicitor General, Assistant Attorney General Townsend, George B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel.
Edward Feldman and Daniel Gersen submitted on brief for petitioner in No. 402.
Albert R. Connelly argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were George S. Collins and George M. Billings.
Per Curiam.
Reversed. Zittman v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 471.
The Chief Justice did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. 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. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations | What is the ideological direction of the decision reviewed by the Supreme Court? | [
"Conservative",
"Liberal",
"Unspecifiable"
] | [
0
] | sc |
HERTZ CORPORATION (SUCCESSOR TO J. FRANK CONNOR, INC.) v. UNITED STATES.
No. 283.
Argued March 30, 1960.
Decided June 27, 1960.
Edgar Bernhard argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Boswell Magill, Harry N. Wyatt, Donald J. Yellon and John C. Klett, Jr.
Howard A. Heffron argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Rice, Ralph S. Spritzer, I. Henry Kutz and Myron C. Baum.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, like No. 141, Massey Motors, Inc., v. United States, and No. 143, Commissioner v. Evans, both decided today, ante, p. 92, involves the depreciation allowable on cars and trucks used by petitioner’s predecessor in its automobile rental business during the years 1954-1956, inclusive. The taxpayer elected to avail itself of the accelerated method of depreciation provided in § 167 (b) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 — known as “the declining balance method.” Section 167 (c) of the Code limits the use of this method to property “with a useful life of 3 years or more.” The applicable Treasury Regulations on Depreciation, § 1.167 (a)-1 (b), T. D. 6182, 1956-1 Cum. Bull. 98, issued in 1956, define useful life as the “period over which the asset may reasonably be expected to be useful to the taxpayer in his trade or business . . . .” Admittedly, if this regulation is valid, taxpayer’s passenger cars covered by it would not meet the three-year requirement of § 167 (c). The Commissioner denied the petitioner the right to use the declining balance method as to those cars. What we have said in Massey and Evans, supra, disposes of the contention as to the meaning of “useful life” here. We therefore hold, as did the Court of Appeals, 268 F. 2d 604, that the regulation as to “useful life” involved here is valid and applicable to petitioner.
The remaining issues pose questions that relate to the depreciation on the trucks of the taxpayer which con-cededly had a useful life in excess of three years and were therefore subject to depreciation under the declining balance method authorized under §167 (b)(2). Section 1.167 (a)-l (b), issued in 1956 and subsequent to ■ some of the tax years involved in petitioner’s claim, was applied by the Commissioner. He ruled that the salvage value of the trucks at the time of disposition must be accounted for in the depreciation equation. Petitioner contended that this resulted in a retroactive application of the regulation and, in any event, it was invalid because it was not authorized under the 1954 Code. After petitioner paid the assessed tax and was denied a refund, this case was filed. The trial court held in favor of petitioner, but the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the regulation applied and was not retroactive because it was only declaratory of existing law and that salvage value must be computed in the depreciation equation. We granted certiorari, 361 U. S. 811, and heard the case as a companion to Massey and Evans, supra. We agree with the result reached by the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner succeeded J. Frank Connor, Inc., by merger in 'July 1956; the taxes accrued against Connor during the fiscal years 1954, 1955, and 1956. Connor was engaged in the business of renting and leasing automobiles and trucks, without drivers, during the pertinent years. In the preparation of its returns for the years ending March 31, 1954, 1955, and 1956, Connor claimed depreciation on its automobiles on the basis of a four-year useful life. The taxes so computed were paid. Subsequently, and after merger, petitioner filed claims for refund on All three years. This claim was based on an election in accordance with § 1.167 (c)-1 (c) of the Treasury Regulations issued under the 1954 Code, relating to the declining balance method of depreciation. We see nothing to the contention of retroactive application. The petitioner chose its own weapon, began the struggle under it and, at this late date, cannot be allowed to abandon it.
As to the salvage issue, the petitioner claims that, under the method it chose, the Congress built in an artificial salvage value, i. e., the amount remaining after the application of the depreciation equation. The regulation, however, says that “in no event shall an asset ... be depreciated below a reasonable salvage value.” The issue is the narrow one of whether this regulation is valid under the congressional authorization providing that, as to depreciation, the term “reasonable allowance” shall include an allowance “computed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate.” Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 167 (b). We think that it is.
As we pointed out in the companion cases, the purpose of depreciation accounting is to allocate the expense of using an asset to the various periods which are benefited by that asset. The declining balance method permits a rapid rate of depreciation in the early years of an asset’s life. The Congress has permitted under this method an allowance not to exceed twice the “straight line” rate, which rate was approved in Massey and Evans, supra. In application, the taxpayer computes his straight-line percentage rate and then doubles it for the first year. This doubled rate is then applied each subsequent year to the declining balance. Because of a belief that most assets do lose more value in the earlier years, this method is justified as an attempt to level off the total costs, including maintenance expense, which will generally be greater in the later years. This means, even under the Commissioner’s theory, that if an asset is disposed of early in what was expected to be its useful life in the business, the depreciation taken may greatly exceed the difference between the purchase price of the asset and its retirement price; this is a result of the conscious choice to permit rapid depreciation. But this, by hypothesis, is an unusual situation. There is nothing inherent in the declining balance system which requires us to assume that depreciation should be allowed beyond what reasonably appears to be the price that will be received when the asset is retired. This would permit a knowing distortion of the expense of employing the asset in the years after that point is reached. It therefore appears that the interpretation contended for by the taxpayer does not comport with the overriding statutory requirement that the depreciation deduction be a reasonable allowance. § 167 (a).
In challenging the regulation, the taxpayer relies upon the following excerpt from S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 201:
“The salvage value is not deducted from the basis prior to applying the rate, since under this method at the expiration of useful life there remains an undepreciated balance which represents salvage value.”
The regulation is consistent with the first part of the sentence, for salvage value is not deducted from the basis prior to the application of the rate. But petitioner contends that the regulation is contrary to the second part of the sentence which appears to equate salvage value under the declining balance method with the mathematical residue which must always exist under the system. This, it appears to us, is but recognition that under this method there is some theoretical salvage value always left. But it only “represents salvage value” and when true salvage value exceeds this amount, the latter controls. Moreover, the regulation can only carry out the fundamental concept of depreciation — that it is allowable only in such amount, together with salvage value, as will effectuate the recovery of cost over the period of useful life. Furthermore, the House Report said that, “The changes made by your committee’s bill merely affect the timing and not .the ultimate amount of depreciation deductions with respect to a property.” Senator Humphrey stated that under the declining balance method “[t]he total deduction over the life of the property will not be increased and only the same total sum will be given as a tax deduction . . . .” Hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., Pt. 1, 95. Both of these statements clearly support the regulation, since, if the taxpayer prevailed, it would be able to take a greater total amount of depreciation under the declining balance method than under the straight-line method, even if salvage value under the latter method were limited to scrap value.
Petitioner also seems to rely on administrative interpretation. It cites a footnote to what is known as Form 2106, issued by the Commissioner. This footnote to Item No. 41 reads, “Salvage value is the estimated resale or trade-in value of the vehicle, determined at the time of purchase. If declining balance method of depreciation is used, disregard salvage value in computing depreciation.” Petitioner says this is a direct instruction to “disregard salvage value” entirely since it is built into the equation. However, we are not inclined to give the footnote such weighty consideration. The form is but a worksheet and the footnote appears to refer to the fact that salvage value is disregarded at the outset of the application of the depreciation equation, as provided by the Code. We likewise place no weight in the remaining peripheral arguments of the petitioner that salvage must be ignored altogether in the application of the declining balance method.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Mr. Justice Whittaker and Mr. Justice Stewart, see ante, p. 107.]
[For views of Mr. Justice Douglas, see ante, p. 121.]
The statute provides:
“ (b) ... the .term ‘reasonable allowance’ . . . shall include . . . an allowance computed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, under any of the following methods:
“(1) the straight line method,
“ (2) the declining balance method, using a rate not exceeding twice the rate which would have been used had the annual allowance been computed under the method described in paragraph (1), . . . .”
The applicable regulation provides:
“§ 1.167 (b)-2. DECLINING Balance Method. — (a) Application of method. — Under the declining balance method a uniform rate is applied each year to the unrecovered cost or other basis of the property. The unrecovered cost or other basis is the basis provided by section 167 (f), adjusted for depreciation previously allowed or allowable, and for all other adjustments provided by section 1016 and other applicable provisions of law. The declining balance rate may be determined without resort to formula. Such rate determined under section 167 (b) (2) shall not exceed twice the appropriate straight line rate computed without adjustment for salvage. While salvage is not taken into account in determining the annual allowances under this method, in no event shall an asset (or an account) be depreciated below a reasonable salvage value. See section 167 (c) and § 1.167 (e) — 1- for restrictions on the use of the declining balance method.”
“§1.167 (c) — 1. LIMITATIONS ON METHODS OP COMPUTING DEPRECIATION Under Section 167 (b)(2), (3), and (4)
“(c) Election to use methods. — Subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph (a) above, the methods of computing the allowance for depreciation specified in section 167 (b)(2), (3), and (4) may be adopted without permission and no formal election is required. In order for a taxpayer to elect to use these methods for any property described in paragraph (a) above, he need only compute depreciation thereon under any of these methods for any taxable year ending after December 31, 1953, in which the property may first be depreciated by him. The election with respect to any property shall not be binding with respect to acquisitions of similar property in the same year or subsequent year which are set up in separate accounts. If a taxpayer has filed his return for a taxable year ending after December 31, 1953, for which the return is required to be filed on or before September 15, 1956, an election to compute the depreciation allowance under any of the methods specified in section 167 (b) or a change in such an election may be made in an amended return or claim for refund filed on or before September 15, 1956.”
H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 25.
Senator Millikin made a similar statement on the floor of the Senate, but preceded it with the observation that depreciation cannot exceed the cost of the asset. The way in which the Senator presented the matter suggests that he did not mean that total depreciation taken could not be greater under the declining balance method of depreciation than under the other accepted methods. However, no such qualification limits the impact of the statement in the House Report. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. 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. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations | What is the ideological direction of the decision reviewed by the Supreme Court? | [
"Conservative",
"Liberal",
"Unspecifiable"
] | [
1
] | sc |
J. McINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. v. NICASTRO, individually and as administrator of the ESTATE OF NICASTRO
No. 09-1343.
Argued January 11, 2011
Decided June 27, 2011
Arthur F. Fergenson argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Steven F. Gooby, Robert A. Assuncao, James S. Coons, Jeffrey I Green, and Sarah O’Rourke Schrup.
Alexander W Ross, Jr., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Janice L. Heinold, John Vail, Andre M. Mura, and Valerie M. Nannery.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America by Peter B. Rutledge and Robin S. Conrad; for the Organization for International Investment et al. by Carter C. Phillips and Mariim Carlson; and for the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., by Alan E. Untereiner.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Arkansas et al. by Dustin McDaniel, Attorney General of Arkansas, and Ali M. Brady, Assistant Attorney General, by Russell A Suzuki, Acting Attorney General of Hawaii, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Terry Goddard of Arizona, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Tom Miller of Iowa, Jack Conway of Kentucky, James D. “Buddy” Caldwell of Louisiana, Janet T. Mills of Maine, Douglas F. Gansler of Maryland, Michael A Co» of Michigan, Chris Foster of Missouri, Gary K. King of New Mexico, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, W. A Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Robert E. Cooper, Jr., of Tennessee, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, and Darrell V. Mc-Graw, Jr., of West Virginia; for the American Association for Justice by Jonathan W. Miller and Gene Locks; for Law Professors by Justin T. Green and James P. Kreindler; for Public Citizen, Inc., by Scott L. Nelson and Allison M. Zieve; and for the Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group by Kathleen G. Sumner.
Gennaro A Filice III and Paul R. Johnson filed a brief for Dow Chemical Canada ULC as amicus curiae.
Justice Kennedy
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The ChieF Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join.
. Whether a person or entity is-subject to the jurisdiction of a state court despite not having been present in the State either at the time of suit or at the time of the alleged injury, and despite not having consented to the exercise of jurisdiction, is a question that arises with great frequency in the routine course of litigation. The rules and standards for determining when a State does or does not have jurisdiction over an absent party have been unclear because of decades-old questions left open in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U. S. 102 (1987).
Here, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, relying in part on Asahi, held that New Jersey’s courts can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer of a product so long as the manufacturer “knows or reasonably should know that its products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to those products being sold in any of the fifty states." Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd., 201 N. J. 48, 76, 77, 987 A. 2d 575, 591, 592 (2010). Applying that test, the court concluded that a British manufacturer of scrap metal machines was subject to jurisdiction in New Jersey, even though at no time had it advertised in, sent goods to, or in any relevant sense targeted the State.
That decision cannot be sustained. Although the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an extensive opinion with careful attention to this Court’s cases and to its own precedent, the “stream of commerce” metaphor carried the decision far afield. Due process protects the defendant’s right not to be coerced except by lawful judicial power. As a general rule, the exercise of judicial power is not lawful unless the defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 253 (1958). There may be exceptions, say, for instance, in cases involving an intentional tort. But the general rule is applicable in this products-liability case, and the so-called “stream-of-commerce” doctrine cannot displace it.
I
This case arises from a products-liability suit filed in New Jersey state court. Robert Nicastro seriously injured his hand while using a metal-shearing machine manufactured by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. (J. McIntyre). The accident occurred in New Jersey, but the machine was manufactured in England, where J. McIntyre is incorporated and operates. The question here is whether the New Jersey courts have jurisdiction over J. McIntyre, notwithstanding the fact that the company at no time either marketed goods in the State or shipped them there. Nicastro was a plaintiff in the New Jersey trial court and is the respondent here; J. McIntyre was a defendant and is now the petitioner.
At oral argument in this Court, Nicastro’s counsel stressed three primary facts in defense of New Jersey’s assertion of jurisdiction over J. McIntyre. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29-30.
First, an independent company agreed to sell J. McIntyre’s machines in the United States. J. McIntyre itself did not sell its machines to buyers in this country beyond the U. S. distributor, and there is no allegation that the distributor was under J. McIntyre’s control.
Second, J. McIntyre officials attended annual conventions for the scrap recycling industry to advertise J. McIntyre’s machines alongside the distributor. The conventions took place in various States, but never in New Jersey.
Third, no more than four machines (the record suggests only one, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 130a), including the machine that caused the injuries that are the basis for this suit, ended up in New Jersey.
In addition to these facts emphasized by respondent, the New Jersey Supreme Court noted that J. Melntyre held both United States and European patents on its recycling technology. 201 N. J., at 55, 987 A. 2d, at 579. It also noted that the U. S. distributor “structured [its] advertising and sales efforts in accordance with” J. McIntyre’s “direction and guidance whenever possible,” and that “at least some of the machines were sold on consignment to” the distributor. Id., at 55, 56, 987 A. 2d, at 579 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In light of these facts, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that New Jersey courts could exercise jurisdiction over petitioner without contravention of the Due Process Clause. Jurisdiction was proper, in that court’s view, because the injury occurred in New Jersey; because petitioner knew or reasonably should have known “that its products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to those products being sold in any of the fifty states”; and because petitioner failed to “take some reasonable step to prevent the distribution of its products in this State.” Id., at 77, 987 A. 2d, at 592.
Both the New Jersey Supreme Court’s holding and its account of what it called “[t]he stream-of-commerce doctrine of jurisdiction,” id., at 80, 987 A. 2d, at 594, were incorrect, however. This Court’s Asahi decision may be responsible in part for that court’s error regarding the stream of commerce, and this case presents an opportunity to provide greater clarity.
II
The Due process Clause protects an individual’s right to be deprived of life, liberty, or property only by the exercise of lawful power. Cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 882 U. S. 399, 403 (1966) (The Clause “protect[s] a person against having the Government impose burdens upon him except in accordance with the valid laws of the land”). This is no less true with respect to the power of a sovereign to resolve disputes through judicial process than with respect to the power of a sovereign to prescribe rules of conduct for those within its sphere. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 94 (1998) (“ ‘Jurisdiction is power to declare the law’ ”). As a general rule, neither statute nor judicial decree may bind strangers to the State. Cf. Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 U. S. 604, 608-609 (1990) (opinion of Scalia, J.) (invoking “the phrase coram non judice, ‘before a person not a judge’ — meaning, in effect, that the proceeding in question was not a judicial proceeding because lawful judicial authority was not present, and could therefore not yield a judgment”).
A court may subject a defendant to judgment only when the defendant has sufficient contacts with the sovereign “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 826 U. S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 463 (1940)). Free-form notions of fundamental fairness divorced from traditional practice cannot transform a judgment rendered in the absence of authority into law. As a general rule, the sovereign’s exercise of power requires some act by which the defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws,” Hanson, 357 U. S., at 253, though in some cases, as with an intentional tort, the defendant might well fall within the State’s authority by reason of his attempt to obstruct its laws. In products-liability cases like this one, it is the defendant’s purposeful availment that makes jurisdiction consistent with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
A person may submit to a State’s authority in a number of ways. There is, of course, explicit consent. E.g., Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U. S. 694, 703 (1982). Presence within a State at the time suit commences through service of process is another example. See Burnham, supra. Citizenship or domicile or, by analogy, incorporation or principal place of business for corporations — also indicates general submission to a State’s powers. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, post, p. 915. Each of these examples reveals circumstances, or a course of conduct, from which it is proper to infer an intention to benefit from and thus an intention to submit to the laws of the forum State. Cf. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U. S. 462, 476 (1985). These examples support exercise of the general jurisdiction of the State’s courts and allow the State to resolve both matters that originate within the State and those based on activities and events elsewhere. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, 466 U. S. 408, 414, and n. 9 (1984). By contrast, those who live or operate primarily outside a State have a due process right not to be subjected to judgment iu its courts as a general matter.
There is also a more limited form of submission to a State’s authority for disputes that “arise out of or are connected with the activities within the state.” International Shoe Co., supra, at 319. Where a defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws,” Hanson, supra, at 253, it submits to the judicial power of an otherwise foreign sovereign to the extent that power is exercised in connection with the defendant’s activities touching on the State. In other words, submission through contact with and activity directed at a sovereign may justify specific jurisdiction “in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Helicopteros, supra, at 414, n. 8; see also Goodyear, post, at 919.
The imprecision arising from Asahi, for the most part, results from its statement of the relation between jurisdiction and the “stream of commerce.” The stream of commerce, like other metaphors, has its deficiencies as well as its utility. It refers to the movement of goods from manufacturers through distributors to consumers, yet beyond that descriptive purpose its meaning is far from exact. This Court has stated that a defendant’s placing goods into the stream of commerce “with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State” may indicate purposeful availment. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 298 (1980) (finding that expectation lacking). But that statement does not amend the general rule of personal jurisdiction. It merely observes that a defendant may in an appropriate case be subject to jurisdiction without entering the forum — itself an unexceptional proposition — as where manufacturers or distributors “seek to serve” a given State’s market. Id., at 295. The principal inquiry in cases of this sort is whether the defendant’s activities manifest an intention to submit to the power of a sovereign. In other words, the defendant must “purposefully avai[l] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson, supra, at 253; Insurance Corp., supra, at 704-705 (“[Ajctions of the defendant may amount to a legal submission to the jurisdiction of the court”). Sometimes a defendant does so by sending its goods rather than its agents. The defendant’s transmission of goods permits the exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant can be said to have targeted the forum; as a general rule, it is not enough that the defendant might have predicted that its goods will reach the forum State.
In Asahi, an opinion by Justice Brennan for four Justices outlined a different approach. It discarded the central concept of sovereign authority in favor of considerations of fairness and foreseeability. As that concurrence contended, “jurisdiction premised on the placement of a product into the stream of commerce [without more] is consistent with the Due Process Clause,” for “[a]s long as a participant in this process is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise.” 480 U. S., at 117 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). It was the premise of the concurring opinion that the defendant’s ability to anticipate suit renders the assertion of jurisdiction fair. In this way, the opinion made foreseeability the touchstone of jurisdiction.
The standard set forth in Justice Brennan’s concurrence was rejected in an opinion written by Justice O’Connor; but the relevant part of that opinion-, too, commanded the assent of only four Justices, not a majority of the Court. That opinion stated: “The 'substantial connection’ between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant pur - posefully directed toward the forum State. The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State.” Id., at 112 (emphasis deleted; citations omitted).
Since Asahi was decided, the courts have sought to reconcile the competing opinions. But Justice Brennan’s concurrence, advocating a rule based on general notions of fairness and foreseeability, is inconsistent with the premises of lawful judicial power. This Court’s precedents make clear that it is the defendant’s actions, not his expectations, that empower a State’s courts to subject him to judgment.
The conclusion that jurisdiction is in the first instance a question of authority rather than fairness explains, for example, why the principal opinion in Burnham “conducted no independent inquiry into the desirability or fairness” of the rule that service of process within a State suffices to establish jurisdiction over an otherwise foreign defendant. 495 U. S., at 621 (opinion of Scalia, J.). As that opinion explained, “[t]he view developed early that each State had the power to hale before its courts any individual who could be found within its borders.” Id., at 610. Furthermore, were general fairness considerations the touchstone of jurisdiction, a lack of purposeful availment might be excused where carefully crafted judicial procedures could otherwise protect the defendant’s interests, or where the plaintiff would suffer substantial hardship if forced to litigate in a foreign forum. That such considerations have not been deemed controlling is instructive. See, e.g., World-Wide Volkswagen, supra, at 294.
Two principles are implicit in the foregoing. First, personal jurisdiction requires a forum-by-forum, or sovereign-by-sovereign, analysis. The question is whether a defendant has followed a course of conduct directed at the society or economy existing within the jurisdiction of a given sovereign, so that the sovereign has the power to subject the defendant to judgment concerning that conduct. Personal jurisdiction, of course, restricts “judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty,” for due process protects the individual’s right to be subject only to lawful power. Insurance Corp., 456 U. S., at 702. But whether a judicial judgment is lawful depends on whether the sovereign has authority to render it.
The second principle is a corollary of the first. Because the United States is a distinct sovereign, a defendant may in principle be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States but not of any particular State. This is consistent with the premises and unique genius of our Constitution. Ours is “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 838 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). For jurisdiction, a litigant may have the requisite relationship with the United States Government but not with the government of any individual State. That would be an exceptional case, however. If the defendant is a domestic domiciliary, the courts of its home State are available and can exercise general jurisdiction. And if another State were to assert jurisdiction in an inappropriate ease, it would upset the federal balance, which posits that each State has a sovereignty that is not subject to unlawful intrusion by other States. Furthermore, foreign corporations will often target or concentrate on particular States, subjecting them to specific jurisdiction in those forums.
It must be remembered, however, that although this case and Asahi both involve foreign manufacturers, the undesirable consequences of Justice Brennan’s approach are no less significant for domestic producers. The owner of a small Florida farm might sell crops to a large nearby distributor, for example, who might then distribute them to grocers across the country. If foreseeability were the controlling criterion, the farmer could be sued in Alaska or any number of other States’ courts without ever leaving town. And the issue of foreseeability may itself be contested so that significant expenses are incurred just on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. Jurisdictional rules should avoid these costs whenever possible.
The conclusion that the authority to subject a defendant to judgment depends on purposeful availment, consistent with Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Asahi, does not by itself resolve many difficult questions of jurisdiction that wall arise in particular cases. The defendant’s conduct and the economic realities of the market the defendant seeks to serve will differ across cases, and judicial exposition will, in common-law fashion, clarify the contours of that principle.
HH f — Í h — i
In this case, petitioner directed marketing and sales efforts at the United States. It may be that, assuming it were otherwise empowered to legislate on the subject, the Congress could authorize the exercise of jurisdiction in appropriate courts. That circumstance is not presented in this case, however, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate to address here any constitutional concerns that might be attendant to that exercise of power. See Asahi, 480 U. S., at 113, n. Nor is it necessary to determine what substantive law might apply were Congress to authorize jurisdiction in a federal court in New Jersey. See Hanson, 357 U. S., at 254 (“The issue is personal jurisdiction, not choice of law”). A sovereign’s legislative authority to regulate conduct may present considerations different from those presented by its authority to subject a defendant to judgment in its courts. Here the question concerns the authority of a New Jersey state court to exercise jurisdiction, so it is petitioner’s purposeful contacts with New Jersey, not with the United States, that alone are relevant.
Respondent has not established that J. McIntyre engaged in conduct purposefully directed at New Jersey. Recall that respondent’s claim of jurisdiction centers on three facts: The distributor agreed to sell J. McIntyre’s machines in the United States; J. McIntyre officials attended trade shows in several States but not in New Jersey; and up to four machines ended up in New Jersey. The British manufacturer had no office in New Jersey; it neither paid taxes nor owned property there; and it neither advertised in, nor sent any employees to, the State. Indeed, after discovery the trial court found that the “defendant does not have a single contact with New Jersey short of the machine in question ending up in this state.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 130a. These facts may reveal an intent to serve the U. S. market, but they do not show that J. McIntyre purposefully availed itself of the New Jersey market.
It is notable that the New Jersey Supreme Court appears to agree, for it could “not find that J. McIntyre had a presence or minimum contacts in this State — in any jurisprudential sense — that would justify a New Jersey court to exercise jurisdiction in this case.” 201 N. J, at 61, 987 A. 2d, at 582. The court nonetheless held that petitioner could be sued in New Jersey based on a “stream-of-eommerce theory of jurisdiction.” Ibid. As discussed, however, the stream-of-commerce metaphor cannot supersede either the mandate of the Due Process Clause or the limits on judicial authority that Clause ensures. The New Jersey Supreme Court also cited “significant policy reasons” to justify its holding, including the State’s “strong interest in protecting its citizens from defective products.”. Id., at 75, 987 A. 2d, at 590. That interest is doubtless strong, but the Constitution commands restraint before discarding liberty in the name of expediency.
* * *
Due process protects petitioner’s right to be subject only to lawful authority. At no time did petitioner engage in any activities in New Jersey that reveal an intent to invoke or benefit from the protection of its laws. New Jersey is without power to adjudge the rights and liabilities of J. McIntyre, and its exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process. The contrary judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court is
Reversed. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the state or territory of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. | What is the state of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed? | [
"Alabama",
"Alaska",
"American Samoa",
"Arizona",
"Arkansas",
"California",
"Colorado",
"Connecticut",
"Delaware",
"District of Columbia",
"Federated States of Micronesia",
"Florida",
"Georgia",
"Guam",
"Hawaii",
"Idaho",
"Illinois",
"Indiana",
"Iowa",
"Kansas",
"Kentucky",
"Louisiana",
"Maine",
"Marshall Islands",
"Maryland",
"Massachusetts",
"Michigan",
"Minnesota",
"Mississippi",
"Missouri",
"Montana",
"Nebraska",
"Nevada",
"New Hampshire",
"New Jersey",
"New Mexico",
"New York",
"North Carolina",
"North Dakota",
"Northern Mariana Islands",
"Ohio",
"Oklahoma",
"Oregon",
"Palau",
"Pennsylvania",
"Puerto Rico",
"Rhode Island",
"South Carolina",
"South Dakota",
"Tennessee",
"Texas",
"Utah",
"Vermont",
"Virgin Islands",
"Virginia",
"Washington",
"West Virginia",
"Wisconsin",
"Wyoming",
"United States",
"Interstate Compact",
"Philippines",
"Indian",
"Dakota"
] | [
34
] | sc |
PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY et al.
No. 80.
Argued April 18-19, 1961.
Decided May 29, 1961.
Byron M. Gray argued the cause for petitioner in No. 80. With him on the briefs were Hugh M. Morris, James M. Tunnell, Jr., William J. Grove, Carroll L. Gilliam and W. W. Heard.
Paul F. Schlicher argued the cause for petitioner in No. 81. With him on the briefs were John J. Wilson, Frank H. Strickler, James M. Tunnell, Jr. and Andrew B. Kirkpatrick, Jr.
Charles V. Wheeler argued the cause for the Cities Service Gas Co., respondent in both cases. With him on the brief were Conrad C. Mount, Jack Werner, Howard L. Williams, Harry S. Littman and John T. Grant.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by J. Weston Miller and Mayte Boylan Hardie for certain municipalities which are political subdivisions of the States of Kansas and Missouri, and by James Lawrence White, John Fleming Kelley and Lewis M. Poe for the Colorado Interstate Gas Co.
Together with No. 81, Texaco, Inc., v. Superior Court of Delaware for New Castle County et al., also on certiorari to the same Court.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents for review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Delaware denying a petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent further proceedings before the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, in actions by Cities Service Gas Company against petitioners involving contracts for the sale of natural gas by petitioners to Cities Service. The claim of petitioners is that the Natural Gas Act, 52 Stat. 821, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 717 et seq., has deprived state courts of jurisdiction over the subject matter of these cases. The sole question, both below and here, is whether the state courts had jurisdiction. The importance of the problems thereby raised justified their disposition here, so we granted the petition for certiorari. 363 U. S. 818.
Cities Service is a natural gas pipeline company. Petitioners are producers of natural gas. Cities Service purchases natural gas from petitioners and transports it through its pipelines, in interstate commerce, for sale to local distributing companies. During the period 1949-1951 Cities Service entered into contracts for the purchase of natural gas produced by petitioners from the Hugoton Field in Kansas. In each instance the price agreed upon was less than eleven cents per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) measured on a pressure base of 14.65 pounds per square inch absolute (psia).
On December 2, 1953, the Corporation Commission of the State of Kansas promulgated an order, to take effect on January 1, 1954, fixing a minimum price of eleven cents per Mcf on a pressure base of 14.65 psia for gas taken from the Kansas Hugoton Field. The effect of this order was to require Cities Service to pay petitioners at a higher rate than those specified in the preexisting contracts. Cities Service brought suit in the Kansas courts to obtain judicial review of the order.
On January 21, 1954, Cities Service advised each of the petitioners by letter of the Kansas minimum-rate order and of its suit for judicial review of that order, adding the following:
“Pending final judicial determination of the said Order and beginning January 1, 1954, Cities Service Gas Company intends to pay for all gas purchased by it in the Kansas Hugoton Field in strict compliance with the terms and conditions of the said Order. Such compliance with said Order by this Company, however, is made to avoid the penalties and actions provided by the Kansas statutes for a violation thereof, and the payments made to you in compliance with said Order pending its final judicial determination are to be considered and accepted by you as involuntary payments on our part, without prejudice to our rights in said litigation, and in no event as an acquiescence by us in the validity of said Order.
“In the event the said Order is finally judicially modified or declared to be invalid in whole or in part, as a result of which you have been overpaid for gas purchased during the interim aforesaid, Cities Service Gas Company will expect you to refund to it the amount of said overpayment.”
Thereafter, each voucher check sent by Cities Service to petitioners in payment for gas purchased bore a notation stating that it was tendered “subject to provisions” of the January 21,1954, letter. Petitioners cashed these checks without objection to the conditions of their tender. Petitioner Pan American Petroleum Corporation (formerly Stanolind) wrote in reply to the Cities Service letter of January 21:
“We construe the last paragraph of said letter to mean that Cities will expect Stanolind to refund to it the amount of over-payments, if any, without any interest thereon should the said Order of December 2, 1953 be finally judicially modified or declared to be invalid in whole or in part by an adjudication which would be binding and controlling on Stanolind. We will, therefore, accept payments on this basis.”
Petitioner Texaco, Inc., acknowledged receipt of Cities Service’s payment of February 25, 1954, by a letter dated March 2, 1954, without objection to the conditions of payment.
On June 7, 1954, this Court, in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672, held that the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission extended to “the rates of all wholesales of natural gas in interstate commerce, whether by a pipeline company or not and whether occurring before, during, or after transmission by an interstate pipeline company.” 347 U. S., at 682. Following the Phillips decision, the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the Natural Gas Act, on July 16, 1954, issued an order requiring independent producers to file with the Commission rate schedules setting forth the terms and conditions of service and all rates and charges for transportation or sales effective on June 7, 1954. “Rate schedule” was defined to mean “the basic contract and all supplements or agreements amendatory thereof, effective and applicable on and after June 7, 1954 '. . . .” 18 CFR, 1960 Cum. Supp., § 154.93. In compliance with the Commission’s directive, petitioner Texaco filed the basic contract between it and Cities Service, an amendatory letter, sample billing statements, the Kansas minimum-rate order, and the Cities Service letter of January 21, 1954. Petitioner Pan American filed its basic contract with Cities Service, a number of supplemental letters and agreements (not including the letter of January 21, 1954), a sample billing, and the Kansas order.' With reference to that order, Pan American explained that it had been upheld by a court of competent jurisdiction and that therefore the gas sales contract had “in effect” been “amended thereby.”
On December 8, 1956, the Supreme Court of Kansas sustained the validity of the Kansas Corporation Commission’s minimum-rate order, Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm’n, 180 Kan. 454, 304 P. 2d 528, but on January 20, 1958, that decision was reversed here, Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm’n, 355 U. S. 391.
In complaints filed in the Superior Court of Delaware in June of 1958, Cities Service set forth the original contracts between the parties, the Kansas minimum-rate order and its bearing on the contractually determined prices, the letter of January 21, 1954, the voucher checks, other relevant correspondence, and this Court’s reversal of the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision upholding the order’s validity. On the basis of these allegations Cities Service sued for overcharges by Texaco in the sum of $412,995.95 and Pan American of $10,324,468.67, paid under compulsion of the Kansas order for gas purchased at rates higher than those stipulated by contract. After intermediate procedural steps, the defendants moved for summary judgments, which were denied. There followed this petition for a writ of prohibition, attacking the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to entertain the actions brought by Cities Service.
The Supreme Court of Delaware sustained the jurisdiction of the Superior Court over these causes, stating that the claims of Cities Service “are not founded upon any liability created by the Natural Gas Act, but upon a private contract deriving its force from state law.” (Emphasis in the original.) Columbian Fuel Corp. v. Superior Court, 52 Del. _, _, 158 A. 2d 478, 482.
“It is certainly true that the adjudication of these claims does entail an examination of the provisions of the Natural Gas Act, the regulations of the Commission, and the applicable federal decisions. But these have been brought into the cases by way of defense to complaints which, on their face, are based on nothing more than contracts to refund amounts measured by the contract or 'filed’ rate and the rate fixed by the Kansas order. The general rule is that in such a case the plaintiff’s suit is not one arising under federal law. . . .” 52 Del., at _, 158 A. 2d, at 483.
The argument against this conclusion runs- as follows. Under the Natural Gas Act the prices to be paid for natural gas sold wholesale in interstate commerce must be in accordance with the rates filed with the Federal Power Commission. Since the suits instituted by Cities Service involve rates so filed, they must either be to enforce a filed rate or to challenge a filed rate. If the former, they are subject to § 22 of the Act, which provides, for present purposes, that “The District Courts of the United States . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction of violations of this [statute] or the rules, regulations, and orders thereunder, and of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this [statute] or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder.” 52 Stat. 833, 15 U. S. C. § 717u. If the latter, they lie within the purview of § 19 of the Act, which provides for review of Commission orders in the United States Courts of Appeals. 52 Stat. 831, 15 U. S. C. § 717r. In either case, the state courts are deprived of jurisdiction.
But questions of exclusive federal jurisdiction and ouster of jurisdiction of state courts are, under existing jurisdictional legislation, not determined by ultimate substantive issues of federal law. The answers depend on the particular claims a suitor makes in a state court— on how he casts his action. Since “the party who brings a suit is master to decide what law he will rely upon,” The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 U. S. 22, 25, the complaints in the Delaware Superior Court determine the nature of the suits before it. Their operative paragraphs demand recovery on alleged contracts to refund overpayments in the event of a judicial finding that the Kansas minimum-rate order was invalid, or for restitution of the overpayments by which petitioners have allegedly been unjustly enriched under the compulsion of the invalid Kansas order. No right is asserted under the Natural Gas Act.
The suits are thus based upon claims of right arising under state, not federal, law. It is settled doctrine that a case is not cognizable in a federal trial court, in the absence of diversity of citizenship, unless it appears from the face of the complaint that determination of the suit depends upon a question of federal law. See, e. g., Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U. S. 667, 672, and cases cited. Apart from diversity jurisdiction, “a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action. . . . and the controversy must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for removal. . . .” Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U. S. 109, 112-113.
For this requirement it is no substitute that the defendant is almost certain to raise a federal defense. See Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum, supra; Gully v. First National Bank, supra, and authorities cited in those cases. Equally immaterial is it that the plaintiff could have elected to proceed on a federal ground. Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1, 14-17. If the plaintiff decides not to invoke a federal right, his claim belongs in a state court.
The rights as asserted by Cities Service are traditional common-law claims. They do not lose their character because it is common knowledge that there exists a scheme of federal regulation of interstate transmission of natural gas. What was said in Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U. S., at 116, is apposite:
“We recur to the test announced in Puerto Rico v. Russell & Co., supra: ‘The federal nature of the right to be established is decisive — not the source of the authority to establish it.’ Here the right to be established is one created by the state. If that is so, it is unimportant that federal consent is the source of state authority. To reach the underlying law we do not travel back so far. By unimpeachable authority, a suit brought upon a state statute does not arise under an act of Congress or the Constitution of the United States because prohibited thereby. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, supra. With no greater reason can it be said to arise thereunder because permitted thereby.”
We are not called upon to decide the extent to which the Natural Gas Act reinforces or abrogates the private contract rights here in controversy. The fact that Cities Service sues in contract or quasi-contract, not the ultimate validity of its arguments, is decisive.
Nor does § 22 of the Natural Gas Act help petitioners. “Exclusive jurisdiction” is given the federal courts but it is “exclusive” only for suits that may be brought in the federal courts. Exclusiveness is a consequence of having jurisdiction, not the generator of jurisdiction because of which state courts are excluded. This was settled long ago in Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Co., 168 U. S. 255, a case involving a grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts in all cases arising under the patent laws. Suit was brought in a state court on a common-law contract claim. The complaint contained no mention of a patent, but the invalidity of certain patents was set up in defense. In response to the argument that this deprived the state courts of jurisdiction, the Court said:
“Section 711 [the jurisdictional provision] does not deprive the state courts of the power to determine questions arising under the patent laws, but only of assuming jurisdiction of 'cases' arising under those laws. There is a clear distinction between a case and a question arising under the patent laws. The former arises when the plaintiff in his opening pleading — be it a bill, complaint or declaration — sets up a right under the patent laws as ground for a recovery. Of such the state courts have no jurisdiction. The latter may appear in the plea or answer or in the testimony. The determination of such question is not beyond the competency of the state tribunals.” (Emphasis in the original.) 168 U. S., at 259.
Petitioners contend that to permit the state courts to entertain the suits brought by Cities Service will jeopardize the uniform system of regulation that Congress established through the Natural Gas Act. Apart from other considerations that dispel such fears, it should be remembered that the route to review by this Court is open to parties aggrieved by adverse state-court decisions of federal questions. In Great Northern R. Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co., 259 U. S. 285, the question before the Court was whether not merely the state courts but any court had jurisdiction to construe a tariff prior to consideration of the disputed question of construction by the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was argued in that case, as it is argued here, that to permit entry into the courts, without initial resort to the Commission, would destroy essential uniformity. The answer there given by Mr. Justice Brandéis, speaking for the Court, applies here:
“This argument is unsound. It is true that uniformity is the paramount purpose, of the Commerce Act. But it is not true that uniformity in construction of a tariff can be attained only through a preliminary resort to the Commission to settle the construction in dispute. Every question of the construction of a tariff is deemed a question of law; and where the question concerns an interstate tariff it is one of federal law. If the parties properly preserve their rights, a construction given by any court, whether it be federal or state, may ultimately be reviewed by this court either on writ of error or on writ of certiorari; and thereby uniformity in construction may be secured. Hence, the attainment of uniformity does not require that in every case where the construction of a tariff is in dispute, there shall be a preliminary resort to the Commission.” 259 U. S., at 290-291.
We hold that the state courts of Delaware do have jurisdiction to hear and decide the claims that Cities Service has formulated.
Affirmed.
It is apparent from the opinion of the Delaware Supreme Court that this was the only question decided there. See also Clendaniel v. Conrad, 26 Del. 549, 598, 83 A. 1036, 1052.
“The writ of prohibition . . . issues only from a superior court to an inferior court, tribunal or judge, and only for the purpose of keeping such inferior court within the limits of its jurisdiction. That is the sole purpose of the writ.”
Accord, Knight v. Haley, 36 Del. 366, 374, 176 A. 461, 464; Canaday v. Superior Court, 49 Del. 332, 338-339, 116 A. 2d 678, 681-682.
The foregoing conclusions are not affected by want of explicit limitation to jurisdiction “arising under” the Natural Gas Act. Such limitation is clearly implied, as the authoritative Committee Reports indicate. “This section [referring to § 22] imposes appropriate jurisdiction upon the courts of the United States over cases arising under the act.” H. R. Rep. No. 709, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 9; S. Rep. No. 1162, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 7. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the state or territory of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. | What is the state of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed? | [
"Alabama",
"Alaska",
"American Samoa",
"Arizona",
"Arkansas",
"California",
"Colorado",
"Connecticut",
"Delaware",
"District of Columbia",
"Federated States of Micronesia",
"Florida",
"Georgia",
"Guam",
"Hawaii",
"Idaho",
"Illinois",
"Indiana",
"Iowa",
"Kansas",
"Kentucky",
"Louisiana",
"Maine",
"Marshall Islands",
"Maryland",
"Massachusetts",
"Michigan",
"Minnesota",
"Mississippi",
"Missouri",
"Montana",
"Nebraska",
"Nevada",
"New Hampshire",
"New Jersey",
"New Mexico",
"New York",
"North Carolina",
"North Dakota",
"Northern Mariana Islands",
"Ohio",
"Oklahoma",
"Oregon",
"Palau",
"Pennsylvania",
"Puerto Rico",
"Rhode Island",
"South Carolina",
"South Dakota",
"Tennessee",
"Texas",
"Utah",
"Vermont",
"Virgin Islands",
"Virginia",
"Washington",
"West Virginia",
"Wisconsin",
"Wyoming",
"United States",
"Interstate Compact",
"Philippines",
"Indian",
"Dakota"
] | [
8
] | sc |
Jorge Luna TORRES, Petitioner
v.
Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.
No. 14-1096.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Nov. 3, 2015.
Decided May 19, 2016.
Matthew L. Guadagno, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Elaine J. Goldenberg, for Respondent.
Stuart Banner, Los Angeles, CA, Matthew L. Guadagno, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant, Attorney General, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor, General, Donald E. Keener, Patrick J. Glen, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act) imposes certain adverse immigration consequences on an alien convicted of an "aggravated felony." The INA defines that term by listing various crimes, most of which are identified as offenses "described in" specified provisions of the federal criminal code. Immediately following that list, the Act provides that the referenced offenses are aggravated felonies irrespective of whether they are "in violation of Federal[,] State[,]" or foreign law. 108 Stat. 4322, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). In this case, we must decide if a state crime counts as an aggravated felony when it corresponds to a specified federal offense in all ways but one-namely, the state crime lacks the interstate commerce element used in the federal statute to establish legislative jurisdiction (i.e., Congress's power to enact the law). We hold that the absence of such a jurisdictional element is immaterial: A state crime of that kind is an aggravated felony.
I
The INA makes any alien convicted of an "aggravated felony" after entering the United States deportable. See § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Such an alien is also ineligible for several forms of discretionary relief, including cancellation of removal-an order allowing a deportable alien to remain in the country. See § 1229b(a)(3). And because of his felony, the alien faces expedited removal proceedings. See § 1228(a)(3)(A).
The Act defines the term "aggravated felony" by way of a long list of offenses, now codified at § 1101(a)(43). In all, that provision's 21 subparagraphs enumerate some 80 different crimes. In more than half of those subparagraphs, Congress specified the crimes by citing particular federal statutes. According to that common formulation, an offense is an aggravated felony if it is "described in," say, 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (relating to child pornography), § 922(g) (relating to unlawful gun possession), or, of particular relevance here, § 844(i) (relating to arson and explosives). 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(E), (I). Most of the remaining subparagraphs refer to crimes by their generic labels, stating that an offense is an aggravated felony if, for example, it is "murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor." § 1101(a)(43)(A). Following the entire list of crimes, § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence reads: "The term [aggravated felony] applies to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law and applies to such an offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years." So, putting aside the 15-year curlicue, the penultimate sentence provides that an offense listed in § 1101(a)(43) is an aggravated felony whether in violation of federal, state, or foreign law.
Petitioner Jorge Luna Torres, who goes by the name George Luna, immigrated to the United States as a child and has lived here ever since as a lawful permanent resident. In 1999, he pleaded guilty to attempted arson in the third degree, in violation of New York law; he was sentenced to one day in prison and five years of probation. Seven years later, immigration officials discovered his conviction and initiated proceedings to remove him from the country. During those proceedings, Luna applied for cancellation of removal. But the Immigration Judge found him ineligible for that discretionary relief because his arson conviction qualified as an aggravated felony. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a-22a.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirmed, based on a comparison of the federal and New York arson statutes. See id., at 15a-17a. The INA, as just noted, provides that "an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), the federal arson and explosives statute, is an aggravated felony. Section 844(i), in turn, makes it a crime to "maliciously damage[ ] or destroy[ ], or attempt[ ] to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building [or] vehicle ... used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce." For its part, the New York law that Luna was convicted under prohibits "intentionally damag[ing]," or attempting to damage, "a building or motor vehicle by starting a fire or causing an explosion." N.Y. Penal Law Ann. §§ 110, 150.10 (West 2010). The state law, the Board explained, thus matches the federal statute element-for-element with one exception: The New York law does not require a connection to interstate commerce. According to the Board, that single difference did not matter because the federal statute's commerce element is "jurisdictional"-that is, its function is to establish Congress's power to legislate. See App. to Pet for Cert. 16a-17a. Given that the two laws' substantive (i.e., non-jurisdictional) elements map onto each other, the Board held, the New York arson offense is "described in" 18 U.S.C. § 844(i).
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Luna's petition for review of the Board's ruling. See 764 F.3d 152 (2014). The court's decision added to a Circuit split over whether a state offense is an aggravated felony when it has all the elements of a listed federal crime except one requiring a connection to interstate commerce. We granted certiorari. 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2918, 192 L.Ed.2d 923 (2015).
II
The issue in this case arises because of the distinctive role interstate commerce elements play in federal criminal law. In our federal system, "Congress cannot punish felonies generally," Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 428, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) ; it may enact only those criminal laws that are connected to one of its constitutionally enumerated powers, such as the authority to regulate interstate commerce. As a result, most federal offenses include, in addition to substantive elements, a jurisdictional one, like the interstate commerce requirement of § 844(i). The substantive elements "primarily define[ ] the behavior that the statute calls a 'violation' of federal law," Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 547 U.S. 9, 18, 126 S.Ct. 1264, 164 L.Ed.2d 10 (2006) -or, as the Model Penal Code puts the point, they relate to "the harm or evil" the law seeks to prevent, § 1.13(10). The jurisdictional element, by contrast, ties the substantive offense (here, arson) to one of Congress's constitutional powers (here, its authority over interstate commerce), thus spelling out the warrant for Congress to legislate. See id., at 17-18, 126 S.Ct. 1264 (explaining that Congress intends "such statutory terms as 'affect commerce' or 'in commerce' ... as terms of art connecting the congressional exercise of legislative authority with the constitutional provision (here, the Commerce Clause) that grants Congress that authority").
For obvious reasons, state criminal laws do not include the jurisdictional elements common in federal statutes. State legislatures, exercising their plenary police powers, are not limited to Congress's enumerated powers; and so States have no reason to tie their substantive offenses to those grants of authority. See, e.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 567, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). In particular, state crimes do not contain interstate commerce elements because a State does not need such a jurisdictional hook. Accordingly, even state offenses whose substantive elements match up exactly with a federal law's will part ways with respect to interstate commerce. That slight discrepancy creates the issue here: If a state offense lacks an interstate commerce element but otherwise mirrors one of the federal statutes listed in § 1101(a)(43), does the state crime count as an aggravated felony? Or, alternatively, does the jurisdictional difference reflected in the state and federal laws preclude that result, no matter the laws' substantive correspondence?
Both parties begin with the statutory text most directly at issue, disputing when a state offense (here, arson) is "described in" an enumerated federal statute (here, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) ). Luna, armed principally with Black's Law Dictionary, argues that "described in" means "expressed" or "set forth" in-which, he says, requires the state offense to include each one of the federal law's elements. Brief for Petitioner 15-16. The Government, brandishing dictionaries of its own, contends that the statutory phrase has a looser meaning-that "describing entails ... not precise replication," but "convey[ance of] an idea or impression" or of a thing's "central features." Brief for Respondent 17. On that view, "described in," as opposed to the more precise "defined in" sometimes found in statutes, denotes that the state offense need only incorporate the federal law's core, substantive elements.
But neither of those claims about the bare term "described in" can resolve this case. Like many words, "describe" takes on different meanings in different contexts. Consider two ways in which this Court has used the word. In one case, "describe" conveyed exactness: A contractual provision, we wrote, "describes the subject [matter] with great particularity[,] ... giv[ing] the precise number of pounds [of tobacco], the tax for which each pound was liable, and the aggregate of the tax." Ryan v. United States, 19 Wall. 514, 517, 22 L.Ed. 172 (1874). In another case, not: "The disclosure provision is meant," we stated, "to describe the law to consumers in a manner that is concise and comprehensible to the layman-which necessarily means that it will be imprecise." CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95, 102, 132 S.Ct. 665, 181 L.Ed.2d 586 (2012). So staring at, or even looking up, the words "described in" cannot answer whether a state offense must replicate every last element of a listed federal statute, including its jurisdictional one, to qualify as an aggravated felony. In considering that issue, we must, as usual, "interpret the relevant words not in a vacuum, but with reference to the statutory context." Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2259, 2267, 189 L.Ed.2d 262 (2014).
Here, two contextual considerations decide the matter. The first is § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence, which shows that Congress meant the term "aggravated felony" to capture serious crimes regardless of whether they are prohibited by federal, state, or foreign law. The second is a well-established background principle distinguishing between substantive and jurisdictional elements in federal criminal statutes. We address each factor in turn.
A
Section 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence, as noted above, provides: "The term [aggravated felony] applies to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law and applies to such an offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years." See supra, at 1623. That sentence (except for the time limit on foreign convictions) declares the source of criminal law irrelevant: The listed offenses count as aggravated felonies regardless of whether they are made illegal by the Federal Government, a State, or a foreign country. That is true of the crimes identified by reference to federal statutes (as here, an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) ), as well as those employing generic labels (for example, murder). As even Luna recognizes, state and foreign analogues of the enumerated federal crimes qualify as aggravated felonies. See Brief for Petitioner 21 (contesting only what properly counts as such an analogue).
The whole point of § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence is to make clear that a listed offense should lead to swift removal, no matter whether it violates federal, state, or foreign law.
Luna's jot-for-jot view of "described in" would substantially undercut that function by excluding from the Act's coverage all state and foreign versions of any enumerated federal offense that (like § 844(i) ) contains an interstate commerce element. Such an element appears in about half of § 1101(a)(43)'s listed statutes-defining, altogether, 27 serious crimes. Yet under Luna's reading, only those federal crimes, and not their state and foreign counterparts, would provide a basis for an alien's removal-because, as explained earlier, only Congress must ever show a link to interstate commerce. See supra, at 1624 - 1625. No state or foreign legislature needs to incorporate a commerce element to establish its jurisdiction, and so none ever does. Accordingly, state and foreign crimes will never precisely replicate a federal statute containing a commerce element. And that means, contrary to § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence, that the term "aggravated felony" would not apply to many of the Act's listed offenses irrespective of whether they are "in violation of Federal[,] State[, or foreign] law"; instead, that term would apply exclusively to the federal variants.
Indeed, Luna's view would limit the penultimate sentence's effect in a peculiarly perverse fashion-excluding state and foreign convictions for many of the gravest crimes listed in § 1101(a)(43), while reaching those convictions for less harmful offenses. Consider some of the state and foreign crimes that would not count as aggravated felonies on Luna's reading because the corresponding federal law has a commerce element: most child pornography offenses, including selling a child for the purpose of manufacturing such material, see § 1101(a)(43)(I) ; demanding or receiving a ransom for kidnapping, see § 1101(a)(43)(H) ; and possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, see § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii). Conversely, the term "aggravated felony" in Luna's world would include state and foreign convictions for such comparatively minor offenses as operating an unlawful gambling business, see § 1101(a)(43)(J), and possessing a firearm not identified by a serial number, see § 1101(a)(43)(E)(iii), because Congress chose, for whatever reason, not to use a commerce element when barring that conduct. And similarly, the term would cover any state or foreign conviction for such nonviolent activity as receiving stolen property, see § 1101(a)(43)(G), or forging documents, see § 1101(a)(43)(R), because the INA happens to use generic labels to describe those crimes. This Court has previously refused to construe § 1101(a)(43) so as to produce such "haphazard"-indeed, upside-down-coverage. Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 40, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009). We see no reason to follow a different path here: Congress would not have placed an alien convicted by a State of running an illegal casino at greater risk of removal than one found guilty under the same State's law of selling a child.
In an attempt to make some sense of his reading, Luna posits that Congress might have believed that crimes having an interstate connection are generally more serious than those lacking one-for example, that interstate child pornography is "worse" than the intrastate variety. Brief for Petitioner 35. But to begin with, that theory cannot explain the set of crazy-quilt results just described: Not even Luna maintains that Congress thought local acts of selling a child, receiving explosives, or demanding a ransom are categorically less serious than, say, operating an unlawful casino or receiving stolen property (whether or not in interstate commerce). And it is scarcely more plausible to view an interstate commerce element in any given offense as separating serious from non-serious conduct: Why, for example, would Congress see an alien who carried out a kidnapping for ransom wholly within a State as materially less dangerous than one who crossed state lines in committing that crime? The essential harm of the crime is the same irrespective of state borders. Luna's argument thus misconceives the function of interstate commerce elements: Rather than distinguishing greater from lesser evils, they serve (as earlier explained) to connect a given substantive offense to one of Congress's enumerated powers. See supra, at 1624 - 1625. And still more fundamentally, Luna's account runs counter to the penultimate sentence's central message: that the national, local, or foreign character of a crime has no bearing on whether it is grave enough to warrant an alien's automatic removal.
Luna (and the dissent, see post, at 1637) must therefore fall back on a different defense: that his approach would exclude from the universe of aggravated felonies fewer serious state and foreign offenses than one might think. To make that argument, Luna relies primarily on a part of the Act specifying that the term "aggravated felony" shall include "a crime of violence (as defined in [18 U.S.C. § 16 ] ) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year." § 1101(a)(43)(F) ; see 18 U.S.C. § 16 (defining "crime of violence" as involving the use of "physical force" against the person or property of another). According to Luna, many state and foreign offenses failing to match the Act's listed federal statutes (for want of an interstate commerce element) would count as crimes of violence and, by that alternative route, trigger automatic removal. A different statutory phrase, or so Luna says, would thus plug the holes opened by his construction of the "described in" provisions.
Luna's argument does not reassure us. We agree that state counterparts of some enumerated federal offenses would qualify as aggravated felonies through the "crime of violence" provision. But not nearly all such offenses, and not even the worst ones. Consider again some of the listed offenses described earlier. See supra, at 1628. The "crime of violence" provision would not pick up demanding a ransom for kidnapping. See 18 U.S.C. § 875(a) (defining the crime without any reference to physical force). It would not cover most of the listed child pornography offenses, involving the distribution, receipt, and possession of such materials. It would not reach felon-in-possession laws and other firearms offenses. And indeed, it would not reach arson in the many States defining that crime to include the destruction of one's own property. See Jordison v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1134, 1135 (C.A.9 2007) (holding that a violation of California's arson statute does not count as a crime of violence for that reason); Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29 (Solicitor General agreeing with that interpretation). So under Luna's reading, state and foreign counterparts to a broad swath of listed statutes would remain outside § 1101(a)(43)'s coverage merely because they lack an explicit interstate commerce connection. And for all the reasons discussed above, that result would significantly restrict the penultimate sentence's force and effect, and in an utterly random manner.
B
Just as important, a settled practice of distinguishing between substantive and jurisdictional elements of federal criminal laws supports reading § 1101(a)(43) to include state analogues lacking an interstate commerce requirement. As already explained, the substantive elements of a federal statute describe the evil Congress seeks to prevent; the jurisdictional element connects the law to one of Congress's enumerated powers, thus establishing legislative authority. See supra, at 1624 - 1625; ALI, Model Penal Code § 1.13(10) (1962). Both kinds of elements must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and because that is so, both may play a real role in a criminal case. But still, they are not created equal for every purpose. To the contrary, courts have often recognized-including when comparing federal and state offenses-that Congress uses substantive and jurisdictional elements for different reasons and does not expect them to receive identical treatment.
Consider the law respecting mens rea . In general, courts interpret criminal statutes to require that a defendant possess a mens rea, or guilty mind, as to every element of an offense. See Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 2001, 2009-2010, 192 L.Ed.2d 1 (2015). That is so even when the "statute by its terms does not contain" any demand of that kind. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 70, 115 S.Ct. 464, 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994). In such cases, courts read the statute against a "background rule" that the defendant must know each fact making his conduct illegal. Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 619, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994). Or otherwise said, they infer, absent an express indication to the contrary, that Congress intended such a mental-state requirement.
Except when it comes to jurisdictional elements. There, this Court has stated, "the existence of the fact that confers federal jurisdiction need not be one in the mind of the actor at the time he perpetrates the act made criminal by the federal statute." United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 677, n. 9, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975) ; see United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 68, 104 S.Ct. 2936, 82 L.Ed.2d 53 (1984) ("Jurisdictional language need not contain the same culpability requirement as other elements of the offense"); Model Penal Code § 2.02. So when Congress has said nothing about the mental state pertaining to a jurisdictional element, the default rule flips: Courts assume that Congress wanted such an element to stand outside the otherwise applicable mens rea requirement. In line with that practice, courts have routinely held that a criminal defendant need not know of a federal crime's interstate commerce connection to be found guilty. See, e.g., United States v. Jinian, 725 F.3d 954, 964-966 (C.A.9 2013) ; United States v. Lindemann, 85 F.3d 1232, 1241 (C.A.7 1996) ; United States v. Blackmon, 839 F.2d 900, 907 (C.A.2 1988). Those courts have recognized, as we do here, that Congress viewed the commerce element as distinct from, and subject to a different rule than, the elements describing the substantive offense.
Still more strikingly, courts have distinguished between the two kinds of elements in contexts, similar to this one, in which the judicial task is to compare federal and state offenses. The Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. § 13(a), subjects federal enclaves, like military bases, to state criminal laws except when they punish the same conduct as a federal statute. The ACA thus requires courts to decide when a federal and a state law are sufficiently alike that only the federal one will apply. And we have held that, in making that assessment, courts should ignore jurisdictional elements: When the "differences among elements" of the state and federal crimes "reflect jurisdictional, or other technical, considerations" alone, then the state law will have no effect in the area. Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155, 165, 118 S.Ct. 1135, 140 L.Ed.2d 271 (1998) ; see also id., at 182, 118 S.Ct. 1135 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting) (agreeing that courts should "look beyond ... jurisdictional elements," and focus only on substantive ones, in determining whether "the elements of the two crimes are the same"). In such a case, we reasoned-just as we do now-that Congress meant for the federal jurisdictional element to be set aside.
And lower courts have uniformly adopted the same approach when comparing federal and state crimes in order to apply the federal three-strikes statute. That law imposes mandatory life imprisonment on a person convicted on three separate occasions of a "serious violent felony." 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(1). Sounding very much like the INA, the three-strikes statute defines such a felony to include "a Federal or State offense, by whatever designation and wherever committed, consisting of" specified crimes (e.g., murder, manslaughter, robbery) "as described in" listed federal criminal statutes. § 3559(c)(2)(F). In deciding whether a state crime of conviction thus corresponds to an enumerated federal statute, every court to have faced the issue has ignored the statute's jurisdictional element. See, e.g., United States v. Rosario-Delgado, 198 F.3d 1354, 1357 (C.A.11 1999) (per curiam ); United States v. Wicks, 132 F.3d 383, 386-387 (C.A.7 1997). Judge Wood, writing for the Seventh Circuit, highlighted the phrase "a Federal or State offense, by whatever designation and wherever committed"-the three-strikes law's version of § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence. "It is hard to see why Congress would have used this language," she reasoned, "if it had meant that every detail of the federal offense, including its jurisdictional element [ ], had to be replicated in the state offense." Id., at 386-387. Just so, too, in the INA-whose "aggravated felony" provisions operate against, and rely on, an established legal backdrop distinguishing between jurisdictional and substantive elements.
Luna objects to drawing that line on the ground that it is too hard to tell the difference between the two. See Brief for Petitioner 26-28 (discussing, in particular, statutes criminalizing the destruction of federal property and sending threats via the Postal Service). But that contention collides with the judicial experience just described. Courts regularly separate substantive from jurisdictional elements in applying federal criminal statutes' mens rea requirements; so too in implementing other laws that require a comparison of federal and state offenses. And from all we can see, courts perform that task with no real trouble: Luna has not pointed to any divisions between or within Circuits arising from the practice. We do not deny that some tough questions may lurk on the margins-where an element that makes evident Congress's regulatory power also might play a role in defining the behavior Congress thought harmful. But a standard interstate commerce element, of the kind appearing in a great many federal laws, is almost always a simple jurisdictional hook-and courts may as easily acknowledge that fact in enforcing the INA as they have done in other contexts.
C
Luna makes a final argument opposing our reading of § 1101(a)(43) : If Congress had meant for "ordinary state-law" crimes like arson to count as aggravated felonies, it would have drafted the provision to make that self-evident. Brief for Petitioner 20. Congress, Luna submits, would have used the generic term for those crimes-e.g., "arson"-rather than demanding that the state law of conviction correspond to a listed federal statute. See id., at 20-23. Or else, Luna (and the dissent) suggests, see id., at 24; post, at 1640 - 1641, Congress would have expressly distinguished between substantive and jurisdictional elements, as it did in an unrelated law mandating the pretrial detention of any person convicted of a federal offense "described in [a certain federal statute], or of a State or local offense that would have been an offense described in [that statute] if a circumstance giving rise to Federal jurisdiction had existed," 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(2)(A).
But as an initial matter, Congress may have had good reason to think that a statutory reference would capture more accurately than a generic label the range of state convictions warranting automatic deportation. The clause of § 1101(a)(43) applying to Luna's case well illustrates the point. By referring to 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), that provision incorporates not only the garden-variety arson offenses that a generic "arson" label would cover, but various explosives offenses too. See Brief for Petitioner 23, n. 7 (conceding that had Congress used the term "arson," it would have had to separately identify the explosives crimes encompassed in § 844(i) ). And the elements of generic arson are themselves so uncertain as to pose problems for a court having to decide whether they are present in a given state law. See Poulos, The Metamorphosis of the Law of Arson, 51 Mo. L.Rev. 295, 364, 387-435 (1986) (describing multiple conflicts over what conduct the term "arson" includes). Nor is the clause at issue here unusual in those respects: Section 1101(a)(43) includes many other statutory references that do not convert easily to generic labels. See, e.g., § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii) (listing federal statutes defining various firearms offenses). To be sure, Congress used such labels to describe some crimes qualifying as aggravated felonies-for example, "murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor." § 1101(a)(43)(A). But what is good for some crimes is not for others. The use of a federal statutory reference shows only that Congress thought it the best way to identify certain substantive crimes-not that Congress wanted (in conflict with the penultimate sentence) to exclude state and foreign versions of those offenses for lack of a jurisdictional element.
Still more, Congress's omission of statutory language specifically directing courts to ignore those elements cannot tip the scales in Luna's favor. We have little doubt that "Congress could have drafted [§ 1101(a)(43) ] with more precision than it did." Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409, 422, 125 S.Ct. 2444, 162 L.Ed.2d 390 (2005). But the same could be said of many (even most) statutes; as to that feature, § 1101(a)(43) can join a well-populated club. And we have long been mindful of that fact when interpreting laws. Rather than expecting (let alone demanding) perfection in drafting, we have routinely construed statutes to have a particular meaning even as we acknowledged that Congress could have expressed itself more clearly. See, e.g., ibid. ;
Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33, 41, 128 S.Ct. 2326, 171 L.Ed.2d 203 (2008) ; Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 570-571, 575, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). The question, then, is not: Could Congress have indicated (or even did Congress elsewhere indicate) in more crystalline fashion that comparisons of federal and state offenses should disregard elements that merely establish legislative jurisdiction? The question is instead, and more simply: Is that the right and fair reading of the statute before us? And the answer to that question, given the import of § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence and the well-settled background rule distinguishing between jurisdictional and substantive elements, is yes.
III
That reading of § 1101(a)(43) resolves this case. Luna has acknowledged that the New York arson law differs from the listed federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), in only one respect: It lacks an interstate commerce element. See Pet. for Cert. 3. And Luna nowhere contests that § 844(i)'s commerce element-featuring the terms "in interstate or foreign commerce" and "affecting interstate or foreign commerce"-is of the standard, jurisdictional kind. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 12, 19; Scheidler, 547 U.S., at 17-18, 126 S.Ct. 1264 (referring to the phrases "affect commerce" and "in commerce" as conventional "jurisdictional language"). For all the reasons we have given, such an element is properly ignored when determining if a state offense counts as an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Second Circuit.
It is so ordered.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice THOMAS and Justice BREYER join, dissenting.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) metes out severe immigration consequences to a noncitizen convicted of any of a number of "aggravated felon [ies]." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). An offense "described in" 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) -a federal arson statute-qualifies as such a crime.
In this case, petitioner, who goes by George Luna, was convicted of third-degree arson under N.Y. Penal Law Ann. § 150.10 (West 2010), which punishes anyone who (1) "intentionally" (2) "damages," by (3) "starting a fire or causing an explosion," (4) "a building or motor vehicle." By contrast, the federal arson statute, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), applies when someone (1) "maliciously" (2) "damages or destroys," (3) "by means of fire or an explosive," (4) "any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property" (5) "used in interstate or foreign commerce." There is one more element in the federal offense than in the state offense-(5), the interstate or foreign commerce element. Luna thus was not convicted of an offense "described in" the federal statute. Case closed.
Not for the majority. It dubs the fifth element "jurisdictional," then relies on contextual clues to read it out of the statute altogether. As a result of the majority's sleuthing, Luna-a long-time legal permanent resident-is foreclosed from even appealing to the sound discretion of the Attorney General to obtain relief from removal. Because precedent and the text and structure of the INA require the opposite result, I respectfully dissent.
I
A
Noncitizens convicted of crimes face various consequences under the INA. Among the harshest of those consequences fall on noncitizens convicted of 1 of the approximately 80 "aggravated felonies." A crime that falls into one of the listed provisions can be an aggravated felony "whether in violation of Federal or State law" or "in violation of the law of a foreign country." See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43).
An aggravated felony conviction has two primary repercussions for noncitizens: It renders them deportable, § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and it makes them categorically ineligible for several forms of immigration relief ordinarily left to the discretion of the Attorney General. See, e.g., §§ 1229b(a) -(b) (cancellation of removal).
The dozens of aggravated felonies in the INA are specified in two main ways. First, some are specified by reference to a generic crime. It is an aggravated felony, for instance, to commit "murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor." § 1101(a)(43)(A). Some of those crimes use a federal definition as one of the elements. For example: "Illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in [21 U.S.C. § 802 ] )." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) (emphasis added). ("Illicit trafficking" is a generic crime; the element of "controlled substance" takes the meaning in 21 U.S.C. § 802, the "Definitions" provision of the Controlled Substances Act.)
Second, it lists crimes that are wholly "described in" the federal criminal code. See, e.g., § 1101(a)(43)(H) ("an offense described in section 875, 876, 877, or 1202 of title 18 (relating to the demand for or receipt of ransom)"); § 1101(a)(43)(I) ("an offense described in section 2251, 2251A, or 2252 of title 18 (relating to child pornography)"). The Government contends that Luna committed a crime in this second category: an "offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), which criminalizes arson. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i).
B
In 2006, Luna was found removable from the United States. He attempted to apply for cancellation of removal, a form of relief available to long-time legal permanent residents at the discretion of the Attorney General. § 1229b(a). Nothing in Luna's history would otherwise preclude cancellation. He was the sole source of financial support for his U.S. citizen fiancee, enrolled in college and studying engineering, a homeowner, and a law-abiding legal permanent resident since he was brought to the United States as a child over 30 years ago, aside from the one third-degree arson conviction at issue in this case, for which he served a day in jail.
But the Immigration Judge found-and the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Second Circuit confirmed-that Luna was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Luna's New York State arson conviction, the judge held, qualified as an aggravated felony under the provision for "an offense described in" § 844(i), a federal arson statute. See § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i). Aggravated felons are ineligible for cancellation of removal. See § 1229b(a)(3). Luna's cancellation-of-removal application was thus summarily denied.
II
But the offense of which Luna was convicted is not " described in" § 844(i). This Court's ordinary method of interpreting the aggravated felony statute, the plain text of that provision, and the structure of the INA all confirm as much.
A
This is not the first time the Court has been tasked with determining whether a state offense constitutes an "aggravated felony" under the INA. Until today, the Court has always required the state offense to match every element of the listed "aggravated felony."
Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 1166, 1171, 182 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012) ; see also Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 1683-1685, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013) ; Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563, 580, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010) ; Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 33, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009) ; Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 185, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) ; Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 52-53, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006) ; Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 8, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004).
Our ordinary methodology thus confirms that the federal arson statute does not describe the New York arson statute under which Luna was convicted. As I have outlined above, see supra, at 1634, the federal statute is more limited: It applies only to fires that involve "interstate or foreign commerce." The state statute contains no such limitation. Thus, under the approach we have used in every case to date, the omission of the interstate commerce element means that Luna's state arson conviction was not an aggravated felony under the INA.
B
The plain language of the statute supports this straightforward approach. The word "describe" means to "express," "portray," or "represent." See Black's Law Dictionary 445 (6th ed. 1990); Webster's Third New International Dictionary 610 (1986). A description may be "detailed" or it may be general, setting forth only the "recognizable features, or characteristic marks," of the thing described while leaving the rest to the imagination. 4 Oxford English Dictionary 512 (2d ed. 1989). For example, a Craigslist ad describing an apartment with "in-unit laundry, a dishwasher, rooftop access, central A/C, and a walk-in closet" may leave much to the imagination. After all, the description does not mention the apartment's square footage, windows, or floor number. But though the ad omits features, we would still call it a "description" because it accurately conveys the "recognizable features" of the apartment.
However, even the most general description cannot refer to features that the thing being described does not have. The ad is only an accurate description if the apartment "described in" it has at least the five features listed. If the apartment only has four of the five listed features-there is no rooftop access, say, or the walk-in closet is not so much walk-in as shimmy-in-then the Craigslist ad no longer "describes" the apartment. Rather, it mis describes it.
So, too, with the statutes in this case. The federal description can be general as long as it is still accurate-that is, as long as the state law has at least all of the elements in the federal law. But there is no meaning of "describe" that allows the Court to say § 844(i)"describes" the New York offense when the New York offense only has four of the five elements listed in § 844(i). Section 844(i) misdescribes the New York offense just as surely as the too-good-to-be-true Craigslist ad misdescribes the real-life apartment.
C
The structure of the INA confirms that conclusion and makes clear that we need not contort the ordinary, accepted meaning of the phrase "described in." The INA has many overlapping provisions that assign carefully calibrated consequences to various types of criminal convictions. The Court thus need not interpret any provision-and certainly none of the aggravated felony provisions, among the harshest in the INA-as broadly as possible because the INA as a whole ensures that serious criminal conduct is adequately captured.
That overlapping structure is apparent throughout the INA. First, the aggravated felony list itself has multiple fail-safe provisions. Most serious offenses, for instance, will qualify as "crime[s] of violence ... for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year," 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), even if they are not covered by a more specific provision in the aggravated felony list. Had his crime been charged as a more serious arson and had he been punished by one year of imprisonment instead of one day, Luna might have qualified as an aggravated felon under that provision. See Santana v. Holder, 714 F.3d 140, 145 (C.A.2 2013) (second-degree arson in New York is a "crime of violence").
Second, other sections of the INA provide intertwining coverage for serious crimes. Some examples of provisions that encompass many offenses include those for the commission of a "crime involving moral turpitude," a firearms offense, or a controlled substance offense, all of which will render a noncitizen removable, even if he or she has not committed an aggravated felony. See §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), (B)(i), (C) ; §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)-(ii). Cf. Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 48, 132 S.Ct. 476, 181 L.Ed.2d 449 (2011) (commenting on the breadth of the "crime involving moral turpitude" provision).
And finally, in Luna's case or anyone else's, the Attorney General can exercise her discretion to deny relief to a serious criminal whether or not that criminal has been convicted of an aggravated felony. See Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at 581, 130 S.Ct. 2577 (doubting that a narrow reading of § 1101(a)(43) will have "any practical effect on policing our Nation's borders").
To be sure, on Luna's reading, some serious conduct may not be captured by the INA. But not nearly so much as the majority suggests. By contrast, once the aggravated felony statute applies to a noncitizen, no provision in the INA-and virtually no act by the Attorney General-can prevent him or her from being removed.
Looking for consistency in the aggravated felony provisions of the INA is often a fool's errand. See Kawashima, 565 U.S., at ----, n. 2, 132 S.Ct., at 1171, n. 2 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting) (noting the absurdity of making a tax misdemeanor, but not driving while drunk and causing serious bodily injury, an aggravated felony). But the structure of the INA gives the Court no reason to read the aggravated felony provisions as broadly as possible. That is why this Court has repeatedly cautioned against interpreting the aggravated felony section to sweep in offenses that-like many state arson convictions-may be neither aggravated nor felonies. See Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at 574, 130 S.Ct. 2577 ; Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as Amici Curiae 28-29 (collecting state misdemeanor arson statutes).
III
The majority denies Luna the opportunity to present his case to the Attorney General based on two "contextual considerations," ante, at 1626, and an intuition about how the statute ought to work. None are sufficiently persuasive to overcome the most natural reading of the aggravated felony statute.
A
The majority first perceives a conflict between Luna's reading of the INA and what it calls the "penultimate sentence" of the aggravated felony statute. The "penultimate sentence" provides that an offense can be an aggravated felony "whether in violation of Federal or State law" or "in violation of the law of a foreign country." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). The majority claims that Luna's reading of the INA would vitiate the quoted proviso. Ante, at 1623 - 1628.
It is true that, on Luna's reading, some of the aggravated felonies listed in the INA (including "an offense described in" § 844(i) ) will have no state or foreign analog. But the proviso still applies to generic offenses, which constitute nearly half of the entries in the aggravated felony list. See, e.g., §§ 1101(a)(43)(A), (G), (M)(i). And that already-large portion jumps to close to three-quarters of the offenses after counting those many listed federal statutes with no jurisdictional element. See, e.g., §§ 1101(a)(43)(C), (E)(ii), (J). In fact, it applies to the vast majority of offenses adjudicated under the INA given that most serious crimes are also "crimes of violence." See § 1101(a)(43)(F).
And the majority must admit that its interpretation will also leave entries in the aggravated-felony section with no state or foreign analogs. For instance, it seems unlikely that the proviso contemplates state analogs for the aggravated felony provisions regarding treason, levying war against the United States, or disclosing national defense information. See §§ 1101(a)(43)(L)(i), (P).
In other words, under Luna's reading, the "penultimate sentence" applies to most, but not all, of the entries of the aggravated felony statute; under the majority's reading, the "penultimate sentence" also applies to most, but not all, of the entries of the aggravated felony statute. The majority's first "contextual consideration" thus supplies no reason to prefer one reading over the other.
B
Just as important, the majority suggests, is a "settled practice of distinguishing between substantive ... elements"-those that define "the evil Congress seeks to prevent"-and "jurisdictional element[s]," which merely "establis[h] legislative authority." Ante, at 1630. The majority admits that the Court does not distinguish between substantive and jurisdictional elements for many purposes, such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the right to a jury trial. Ibid .; see Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 606, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). But it nonetheless insists on a standard distinction so entrenched that Congress must have intended it to apply even absent any particular indication in the INA.
None of the three examples that the majority proffers is evidence of such a strong norm. First, the majority invokes our rules for interpreting criminal statutes. Ante, at 1630 - 1631. Whereas our general assumption is that a defendant must know each fact making his conduct illegal, courts generally hold that a criminal defendant need not know the facts that satisfy the jurisdictional element of a statute.
But jurisdictional elements are not the only elements a defendant need not know. Under the "default rule," ante, at 1632, n. 12, for interpreting so-called "public welfare" offenses, courts have held that a defendant need not know that the substance he possesses is a narcotic, that the device he possesses is unregistered, or that he reentered the United States after previously being deported. See Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 606-609, 611, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994) (citing United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 42 S.Ct. 301, 66 L.Ed. 604 (1922), and United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 91 S.Ct. 1112, 28 L.Ed.2d 356 (1971) ); United States v. Burwell, 690 F.3d 500, 508-509 (C.A.D.C.2012) ; United States v. Giambro, 544 F.3d 26, 29 (C.A.1 2008) ; United States v. Martinez-Morel, 118 F.3d 710, 715-717 (C.A.10 1997). But surely the majority would not suggest that if we agree with those holdings regarding mens rea, we must then ignore the "controlled substance" element of the drug trafficking aggravated felony, the "unregistered" element of the unregistered firearms aggravated felony, or the "following deportation" element of the illegal reentry aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B), (E)(iii), (M)(i), (O). So there is likewise no reason to believe that the "default rule" for assigning mens rea to jurisdictional elements is embedded in the INA.
The majority next points to two of the many statutes that, like the INA, require comparing the elements of federal and state offenses. But in each case, it is the statute's language and context, not some "settled practice," ante, at 1630 - 1631, that command the omission of the jurisdictional element.
The majority's first example, ante, at 1631 - 1632, is the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13(a), a gap-filling statute that incorporates state criminal law into federal enclaves if the "act or omission" is not "made punishable by any enactment of Congress" but "would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State." The Court held that, in identifying such a gap, courts should ignore "jurisdictional, or other technical," differences between a state and federal statute. Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155, 165, 118 S.Ct. 1135, 140 L.Ed.2d 271 (1998). But the way courts match the elements of a state law to a federal analog under the Assimilative Crimes Act differs fundamentally from our INA inquiry. The basic question under the Assimilative Crimes Act is whether "federal statutes reveal an intent to occupy so much of the field as would exclude the use of the particular state statute at issue." Id., at 164, 118 S.Ct. 1135. Under the Assimilative Crimes Act, the state statute is not compared to a single federal statute, but rather to a complex of federal statutes that roughly cover the same general conduct and "policies." Ibid. That statute thus has little to teach us about 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) : In interpreting the Assimilative Crimes Act, every Member of the Court rejected the simple elements-matching approach that the Court generally employs to construe the aggravated felony provisions of the INA. See 523 U.S., at 182, 118 S.Ct. 1135 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting) (allowing "slight differences" in definition between federal and state statute and using "same-elements inquiry" only as a "starting point").
The majority's analogy to the federal three strikes statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(2)(F), ante, at 1631 - 1632, is similarly unhelpful. That provision counts as a predicate " 'serious violent felony' " any " 'Federal or State offense ... wherever committed, consisting of' " various crimes, including several " 'as described in' " federal statutes. Ante, at 1631. (emphasis added). Though this Court has not construed the statute, the majority notes that courts of appeals disregard the jurisdictional element of federal statutes in assessing whether a state conviction is for a "serious violent felony." Ante, at 1630 - 1631. But nearly all of the statutes listed in § 3559(c)(2)(F) contain place-based jurisdiction elements-the crime must take place "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States," e.g., § 1111(b), or within "the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States," 49 U.S.C. § 46502, and so on. In the two cases cited by the majority, for instance, ante, at 1631 - 1632, Courts of Appeals concluded that a state robbery offense qualified as an offense "described in" the federal bank robbery statute even though the robbery did not take place in a bank. See United States v. Wicks, 132 F.3d 383, 387 (C.A.7 1997) ; United States v. Rosario-Delgado, 198 F.3d 1354, 1357 (C.A.11 1999). In that statute, it is the "wherever committed," not some loose construction of "described in," that specifically instructs the courts that the location where a crime occurs does not matter.
Moreover, in other statutes where Congress wants to exclude jurisdictional elements when comparing state and federal offenses, it ordinarily just says so. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(2)(A) (requiring detention of defendant pending trial if "the person has been convicted ... of a State or local offense that would have been an offense described in subsection (f)(1) of this section if a circumstance giving rise to Federal jurisdiction had existed"); § 2265A(b)(1)(B); § 2426(b)(1)(B); § 3142(f)(1)(D) ; § 5032; 42 U.S.C. §§ 671(a)(15)(D)(ii)(I)-(II) ; §§ 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xvi)(I)-(II). Absent comparably clear language, the Court should not presume that the INA intended deportability to depend on a not-so-"settled practice," ante, at 1630, of occasionally distinguishing between substantive and jurisdictional elements.
C
Finally, the majority suggests that it would be "peculiarly perverse," ante, at 1628, to adopt Luna's plain-text reading of the statute because it would draw a distinction among crimes based on a jurisdictional element that the majority assumes is wholly divorced from "the evil Congress seeks to prevent," ante, at 1630. The jurisdictional element of a federal statute, the majority asserts, is as trivial as the perfunctory warning on a new electronic device: "[A] person would say that she had followed the instructions for setting up an iPhone that are 'described in' the user's manual, even if she in fact ignored the one" instructing that she "begin by 'read[ing] important safety information.' " Ante, at 1626, n. 5; see also ibid. (comparing jurisdictional element to a "detour" in a 3-week itinerary).
For instance, the majority assumes that it would not be "plausible," ante, at 1629, for Congress to have thought that interstate crimes are worse than wholly intrastate crimes. Perhaps. But when faced with an offense that, like arson, admits of a range of conduct, from the minor to the serious, Congress could plausibly have concluded that arsons prosecuted as federal crimes are more uniformly serious than arsons prosecuted as state crimes and counted only the former as aggravated felonies. See, e.g., Klein et al., Why Federal Prosecutors Charge: A Comparison of Federal and New York State Arson and Robbery Filings, 2006-2010, 51 Houston L. Rev. 1381, 1406, 1416-1419 (2014) (finding that arsons prosecuted federally involve more property damage and more injury than arsons prosecuted under state law).
That is because, far from being token, "conventional jurisdictional elements" serve to narrow the kinds of crimes that can be prosecuted, not just to specify the sovereign that can do the prosecuting. Take the federal statute at issue in this case. Section 844(i) requires that the property destroyed be "used in interstate ... commerce." The Court has held that "standard, jurisdictional" element, ante, at 1634, demands the property's "active employment for commercial purposes, and not merely a passive, passing, or past connection to commerce." Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 855, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000). As a result, the Court held that a defendant who threw a Molotov cocktail through the window of an owner-occupied residential house could not be guilty under § 844(i) because the house was not "active[ly] used" in interstate commerce. Id ., at 851, 120 S.Ct. 1904. Surely, however, a New York prosecutor could have secured a conviction under N.Y. Penal Law Ann. § 150.10 had the same crime been prosecuted in state, rather than federal, court.
The difference between an offense under N.Y. Penal Law Ann. § 150.10 and an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) is thus more than a technical consideration about which authority chooses to prosecute. It is a difference that goes to the magnitude and nature of the "evil," ante, at 1630, itself.
* * *
On the majority's reading, long-time legal permanent residents with convictions for minor state offenses are foreclosed from even appealing to the mercy of the Attorney General. Against our standard method for comparing statutes and the text and structure of the INA, the majority stacks a supposed superfluity, a not-so-well-settled practice, and its conviction that jurisdictional elements are mere technicalities. But an element is an element, and I would not so lightly strip a federal statute of one. I respectfully dissent.
Compare Espinal-Andrades v. Holder, 777 F.3d 163 (C.A.4 2015) (finding an aggravated felony in that circumstance); Spacek v. Holder, 688 F.3d 536 (C.A.8 2012) (same); Nieto Hernandez v. Holder, 592 F.3d 681 (C.A.5 2009) (same); Negrete-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 497 (C.A.7 2008) (same); United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020 (C.A.9 2001) (same), with Bautista v. Attorney General, 744 F.3d 54 (C.A.3 2014) (declining to find an aggravated felony).
That flat statement is infinitesimally shy of being wholly true. We have found a handful of state criminal laws with an interstate commerce element, out of the tens (or perhaps hundreds) of thousands of state crimes on the books. Mississippi, for example, lifted essentially verbatim the text of the federal money laundering statute when drafting its own, and thus wound up with such an element. See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-23-101 (rev. 2014). But because the incidence of such laws is so vanishingly small, and the few that exist play no role in Luna's arguments, we proceed without qualifying each statement of the kind above.
Black's Law Dictionary 401 (5th ed. 1979) (defining "describe" as to "express, explain, set forth, relate, recount, narrate, depict, delineate, portray"). Luna also cites Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 307 (1976), which defines "describe" to mean "to represent or give an account of in words."
See American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 490 (5th ed. 2011) (defining "describe" as "[t]o convey an idea or impression of "); Webster's Third New International Dictionary 610 (1986) (defining "describe" as "to convey an image or notion of" or "trace or traverse the outline of ").
The dissent disagrees, contending that the word "describe" decides this case in Luna's favor because a "description cannot refer to features that the thing being described does not have." Post, at 1636 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). Says the dissent: If a Craigslist ad "describes" an apartment as having an "in-unit laundry, a dishwasher, rooftop access, central A/C, and a walk-in closet," it does not describe an apartment lacking rooftop access. Ibid. That is true enough, but irrelevant. The dissent is right that when someone describes an object by a list of specific characteristics, he means that the item has each of those attributes. But things are different when someone uses a more general descriptor-even when that descriptor (as here, a federal statute) itself has a determinate set of elements. It would be natural, for example, to say (in the exact syntax of § 1101(a)(43) ) that a person followed the itinerary for a journey through Brazil that is "described in" a Lonely Planet guide if he traveled every leg of the tour other than a brief "detour north to Petrópolis." The Lonely Planet, On the Road: Destination Brazil, http://media.lonelyplanet.com/shop/pdfs/brazil-8-getting-started.pdf (all Internet materials as last visited May 16, 2016). And similarly, a person would say that she had followed the instructions for setting up an iPhone that are "described in" the user's manual even if she in fact ignored the one (specifically highlighted there) telling her to begin by "read[ing] important safety information" to "avoid injury." Apple, Set Up iPhone, http://help.apple.com/iphone/9/#iph3bf43d79.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(D) ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1956, which criminalizes laundering of monetary instruments); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1957, which criminalizes engaging in monetary transactions involving property derived from specified unlawful activities); § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i) (three "offense[s] described in" 18 U.S.C. §§ 842(h) -(i), 844(d), which criminalize activities involving explosives); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 844(e), which criminalizes threatening to cause death, injury, or property damage using explosives); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), which criminalizes using fire or explosives to cause property damage); § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii) (six "offense[s] described in" 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)-(5), ( j), which criminalize possessing a firearm in various circumstances); ibid. (two "offense[s] described in" 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n), 924(b), which criminalize transporting or receiving a firearm under certain circumstances); § 1101(a)(43)(E)(iii) ("an offense described in" 26 U.S.C. § 5861( j), which criminalizes transporting an unregistered firearm); § 1101(a)(43)(H) ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 875, which criminalizes making a threat to kidnap or a ransom demand); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1202(b), which criminalizes possessing, receiving, or transmitting proceeds of a kidnapping); § 1101(a)(43)(I) ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 2251, which criminalizes sexually exploiting a child); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 2251A, which criminalizes selling a child for purposes of child pornography); ibid. ("an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 2252, which criminalizes various activities relating to child pornography); § 1101(a)(43)(J) ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1962, which criminalizes activities relating to racketeering); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1084, which criminalizes transmitting information to facilitate gambling); § 1101(a)(43)(K)(ii) ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 2421, which criminalizes transporting a person for purposes of prostitution); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 2422, which criminalizes coercing or enticing a person to travel for purposes of prostitution); ibid. ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 2423, which criminalizes transporting a child for purposes of prostitution); § 1101(a)(43)(K)(iii) ("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), which criminalizes sex trafficking of children, or of adults by force, fraud, or coercion).
The dissent replies: What's the big deal? See post, at 1639. After all, it reasons, some listed federal statutes-specifically, those prohibiting treason, levying war against the United States, and disclosing national defense information-will lack state or foreign analogues even under our construction. See ibid. But Congress's inclusion of a few federal offenses that, by their nature, have no state or foreign analogues hardly excuses expelling from the Act's coverage the countless state and foreign versions of 27 other serious crimes.
Luna's position, in addition to producing this bizarre patchwork of coverage, conflicts with our ordinary assumption that Congress, when drafting a statute, gives each provision independent meaning. See United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65, 56 S.Ct. 312, 80 L.Ed. 477 (1936) ("These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used"). Until its most recent amendment, § 1101(a)(43)(J) provided that the term "aggravated felony" included any "offense described in [18 U.S.C. § 1962 ] (relating to racketeer influenced corrupt organizations) for which a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment or more may be imposed." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(J) (1994 ed., Supp. I). (That provision now incorporates two more federal crimes, and uses one year of prison as the threshold.) The federal racketeering statute cited has an interstate commerce element; analogous state and foreign laws (per usual) do not, and therefore would fall outside § 1101(a)(43)(J) on Luna's reading. But if Congress had meant to so exclude those state and foreign counterparts, then § 1101(a)(43)(J)'s final clause-"for which a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment may be imposed"-would have been superfluous, because federal racketeering is always punishable by more than five years' imprisonment, see 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a). That language's presence shows that Congress thought § 1101(a)(43)(J) would sweep in some state and foreign laws: The final clause served to filter out such statutes when-but only when-they applied to less serious conduct than the federal racketeering offense.
The dissent attempts a variant of Luna's "not so serious" argument, but to no better effect. Claims the dissent: Even if Congress could not have viewed "interstate crimes [as] worse than wholly intrastate crimes," it might have thought that, say, "arsons prosecuted as federal crimes are more uniformly serious than arsons prosecuted as state crimes." Post, at 1641 (emphasis added). But we see no call to suppose that Congress regarded state prosecutions as Grapefruit League versions of the Big Show. Cf. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 427, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). In our federal system, "States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing" criminal laws, including those prohibiting the gravest crimes. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 635, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). For that reason, even when U.S. Attorneys have jurisdiction, they are generally to defer to, rather than supplant, state prosecutions of serious offenses. See U.S. Attorneys' Manual: Principles of Federal Prosecution § 9-27.240 (1997). And still more obviously, the dissent's theory fails with respect to foreign convictions. That a foreign sovereign prosecutes a given crime reflects nothing about its gravity, but only about its location.
In all those States, arsons of every description (whether of one's own or another's property) would fall outside the "crime of violence" provision. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29, 46 (Solicitor General noting that the categorical approach to comparing federal and state crimes produces that effect). And contrary to the dissent's suggestion, post, at 1637, n. 2, that would be true of the most dangerous arsons, as well as of less serious ones. The dissent similarly fails to take into account the categorical approach's rigorous requirements when discussing a couple of the non-arson offenses discussed above. (Still others, the dissent wholly ignores.) It speculates that if the exact right state charge is filed, some of that conduct "may" qualify, through the crime-of-violence provision or some other route, as an aggravated felony. Ibid. "May" is very much the operative word there, because-depending on the elements of the state offense chosen-that conduct also "may not." And the dissent never explains why Congress would have left the deportation of dangerous felons to such prosecutorial happenstance.
The dissent well-nigh embraces those consequences, arguing that a narrow reading of "aggravated felony" would make more convicted criminals removable under other statutory provisions, all of which allow for relief at the Attorney General's discretion. See post, at 1638, 1642 (lamenting that aliens convicted of aggravated felonies may not "even appeal[ ] to the mercy of the Attorney General"). But Congress made a judgment that aliens convicted of certain serious offenses (irrespective of whether those convictions were based on federal, state, or foreign law) should be not only removable but also ineligible for discretionary relief. It is not our place to second-guess that decision.
The dissent declares our discussion of the three-strikes law, the Assimilative Crime Act (ACA), and mens rea "unhelpful" on the ground that all three contexts are somehow "differ[ent]." Post, at 1639 - 1641. But what makes them relevantly so the dissent fails to explain. First, the dissent errs in suggesting that the uniform judicial interpretation of the three-strikes law ignores only "place-based jurisdiction elements" (because, so says the dissent, of the phrase "wherever committed"). Post, at 1640. As Judge Wood's analysis indicates, that is a theory of the dissent's own creation; the actual appellate decisions apply to all jurisdictional elements, not just territorial ones. Next, the dissent goes wrong in claiming that the ACA is not pertinent because this Court adopted a different method for matching substantive elements under that law than under the INA. See post, at 1640. For even as the Court made that choice, it unanimously agreed that, however substantive elements should be compared, jurisdictional elements should be disregarded. See Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155, 165, 118 S.Ct. 1135, 140 L.Ed.2d 271 (1998) ; id., at 182, 118 S.Ct. 1135 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting). And finally, the dissent does nothing to undermine our point on mens rea by noting that Congress very occasionally dispenses with that requirement for substantive elements. See post, at 1639 - 1640. As just shown, the default rule respecting mental states flips as between jurisdictional and substantive elements, see supra, at 1630 - 1631-reflecting the view (also at play in the three-strikes and ACA contexts) that Congress generally means to treat the two differently. That leaves the dissent with nothing except its observation that when applying the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt and jury-trial requirements, the Court does not distinguish between jurisdictional and substantive elements. See post, at 1639. But the dissent forgets that those commands are constitutional in nature; a principle of statutory interpretation distinguishing between the two kinds of elements, as best reflecting Congress's intent, could not bear on those mandates.
Many of the majority's own examples of "the gravest" state offenses supposedly excluded from the aggravated felony list by Luna's reading actually fall within these fail-safe provisions. Ante, at 1628. Many state arsons will qualify as "crime[s] of violence" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), see, e.g., Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 279 (C.A.4 2007) ; an even greater fraction of the most serious arsons will fall under that heading because States like New York have enacted gradated statutes under which more severe degrees of arson are crimes of violence, see Santana, 714 F.3d, at 145. To take another of the majority's examples, while a state conviction for demanding a ransom in a kidnaping is not "an offense described in [18 U.S.C. § 875 ]" under § 1101(a)(43)(H), a state conviction for kidnaping or conspiring to kidnap may qualify as a crime of violence under § 1101(a)(43)(F). See United States v. Kaplansky, 42 F.3d 320 (C.A.6 1994).
And even under the majority's reading, a state-law conviction will only qualify as an aggravated felony if the "right state charge is filed." Ante, at 1630, n. 10. For example, even on the majority's reading, a state-court defendant who sells a child for purposes of child pornography is unlikely to be convicted of "an offense described in [18 U.S.C.] § 2251A," see § 1101(a)(43)(I). That is because virtually no States have a statute corresponding to 18 U.S.C. § 2251A, with or without the interstate commerce element. (But see Fla. Stat. § 847.0145 (2015).) Such a defendant may, however, be convicted of a state offense that qualifies as an aggravated felony for conspiring to commit sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(U) and 1101(a)(43)(A).
Other crimes in the majority's list of serious offenses, ante, at 1628 - 1630, will be covered by these separate INA provisions. For example, the Board of Immigration Appeals has held that any child pornography offense is a "crime involving moral turpitude," rendering a noncitizen removable in many cases. See §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), 1182(a)(2)(A)(i) ; In re Olquin-Rufino, 23 I. & N. Dec. 896 (BIA 2006). Any offense involving a gun would make a noncitizen deportable under one of the catchall provisions for buying, selling, or possessing a firearm in violation of "any law." See § 1227(a)(2)(C).
If the aggravated felony provisions were the primary mechanism for removing serious noncitizen criminals, we would expect any noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony to face immigration consequences. In fact, the aggravated felony provisions only apply to noncitizens who are lawfully admitted or later paroled. Matter of Alyazji, 25 I. & N. Dec. 397, 399 (BIA 2011). Other noncitizens-such as undocumented immigrants, noncitizens applying for a visa, or some legal permanent residents returning after an extended stay abroad-cannot be removed based on the conviction of an aggravated felony; the Government must rely on the other provisions of the INA, including the statute's other criminal provisions, to remove such noncitizens. See §§ 1101(a)(13)(A), 1182, 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
Similarly, if the aggravated felony provision were the only way to ensure that the Attorney General exercised her discretion wisely, we would expect that discretion to be constrained as to all noncitizens who potentially pose a threat to the United States. In fact, the Attorney General is not prevented from granting cancellation of removal-the discretionary relief at issue in this case-to, for instance, a noncitizen who has not been convicted of a crime but is removable for having "received military-type training" from a terrorist organization. See §§ 1227(a)(4)(B), 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VIII), 1229b(a).
In short, it cannot be the case that the aggravated felony provisions were intended to be the statute's sole mechanism for identifying the most dangerous noncitizens.
When the proviso was added to the INA in 1990, it would have applied to an even greater fraction of the aggravated felonies: At that time, the aggravated felony statute listed only five offenses, four of which would have had state analogs even on Luna's reading. See 104 Stat. 5048 (1990). | 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. | What is the ideological direction of the decision? | [
"Conservative",
"Liberal",
"Unspecifiable"
] | [
0
] | sc |
DOBBERT v. FLORIDA
No. 76-5306.
Argued March 28, 1977
Decided June 17, 1977
RehNQtjist, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Stewart, White, BlacKMUN, and Powell, JJ., joined. Burger, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 303. BreNNAN and Marshall, JJ., filed a dissenting statement, post, p. 304. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BreNNAN and Marshall, JJ., joined, post, p. 304.
Louis 0. Frost, Jr., argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Charles W. Musgrove, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs was Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General.
Howard B. Eisenberg filed a brief for the National Legal Aid and Defender Assn, as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, child abuse, and child torture. The victims were his children. Under the Florida death penalty statute then in effect he was sentenced by the trial judge to death for the first-degree murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, and we granted certiorari to consider whether changes in the Florida death penalty statutes subjected him to trial under an ex post facto law or denied him equal protection of the laws, and whether the significant amount of pretrial publicity concerning the crime deprived petitioner of his right to a fair trial. We conclude that petitioner has not shown the deprivation of any federal constitutional right, and affirm the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.
I
Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder of his daughter Kelly Ann, aged 9, and second-degree murder of his son Ryder Scott, aged 7. He was also found guilty of torturing his son Ernest John III, aged 11, and of abusing his daughter Honoré Elizabeth, aged 5. The brutality and heinousness of these crimes are relevant both to petitioner’s motion for a change of venue due to pretrial publicity and to the trial judge’s imposition of the sentence of death. The trial judge, in his factual findings at the sentencing phase of the trial, summarized petitioner’s treatment of his own offspring as follows:
“The evidence and testimony showed premeditated and continuous torture, brutality, sadism and unspeakable horrors committed against all of the children over a period of time.” App. 47.
The judge then detailed some of the horrors inflicted upon young Kelly Ann, upon which he relied to' meet the statutory requirement that aggravating circumstances be found:
“Over the period of time of the latter portion of Kelly Ann’s short, tortu[r]ous life the defendant did these things to her on one or many occasions:
“1. Beat her in the head until it was swollen.
“2. Burned her hands.
“3. Poked his fingers in her eyes.
“4. Beat her in the abdomen until-fit was swollen like she was pregnant.’
“5. Knocked her against a wall and ‘when she fell, kicked her in the lower part of the body.’
“6. Held her under water in both the bath tub and toilet.
“7. Kicked her against a table which cut her head— then defendant sewed up her wound with needle and thread.
“8. Scarred her head and body by beating her with a belt and board — causing marks from her cheek, across the neck and down her back — which injuries worsened without treatment ‘until the body juices came out.’
“9. On one occasion beat her continuously for 45 minutes.
“10. On many occasions kicked her in the stomach with his shoes on, and on the night she died he kicked her a number of times.
“11. Kept her out of school so that the many scars, cuts and bruises on her body would not be seen by others.
“12. Defendant made no effort to get professional medical care and attention for the child and in fact actively prevented any out-siders from discovering her condition.
“13. Choked her on the night she died and when she stopped breathing he placed her body in a plastic garbage bag and buried her in an unmarked and unknown grave.” Id., at 47-48.
This sordid tale began to unravel in early 1972 when Ernest John III was found battered and wandering in Jacksonville, Fla. An arrest warrant was issued for petitioner, who evidently had fled the area. About a year later, Honoré Elizabeth was found in a Ft. Lauderdale hospital with a note pinned to her clothing asking that she be sent to her mother in Wisconsin. Shortly thereafter petitioner’s abandoned automobile was found near a bridge with a suicide note on the front seat. Petitioner, however, had fled to Texas, where he was eventually arrested and extradited to Florida.
Prior to trial, petitioner applied to the Supreme Court of Florida for a Constitutional Stay of Trial, alleging the application of an ex post facto law and a violation of equal protection. Id., at 81-86. The application was denied. Petitioner also moved in the lower court for a change of venue, alleging that he was charged with “inherently odious” acts, id., at 17, and that extensive publicity regarding his flight, extradition, and arrest, as well as a search for bodies by the Jacksonville Police Department, had rendered impossible a fair and impartial trial in Duval County. Id., at 17-18. The trial judge took the motion under advisement and issued an order enjoining anyone connected with the trial from releasing any statement about the case to the news media. Id., at 25-26. The motion was later denied.
Trial was had and the jury found petitioner guilty of, inter alia, murder in the first degree. Pursuant to the Florida death penalty statute then in effect, a sentencing hearing was held before the judge and jury. The jury by a 10-to-2 maj ority — found sufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh any aggravating circumstances and recommended a sentence of life imprisonment. The trial judge, pursuant to his authority under the amended Florida statute, overruled the jury’s recommendation and sentenced petitioner to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed over two dissents.
II
Petitioner makes three separate claims based on the prohibition against ex post facto laws, and a related claim based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. His first ex post facto claim is addressed to the change in the function of judge and jury in the imposition of death sentences in Florida between the time he committed the acts charged and the time he was tried for them. The second ex post facto claim is grounded on his contention that at the time he acted there was no valid death penalty statute in effect in Florida. The third claim relates to the more stringent parole requirements attached to a life sentence under the new law. A discussion of the relevant changes in Florida death-sentencing procedures brings these claims into focus.
The murders of which petitioner was convicted were alleged to have occurred on December 31, 1971 (Kelly Ann), and between January 1 and April 8, 1972 (Ryder Scott). During that period of time, Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 775.082 (1971) and 921.141 (Supp. 1971-1972), as then written, provided that a person convicted of a capital felony was to be punished by death unless the verdict included a recommendation of mercy by a majority of the jury.
On June 22, 1972, this Court struck down a Georgia death penalty statute as violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238. Shortly thereafter, on July 17, 1972, in Donaldson v. Sack, 265 So. 2d 499, the Florida Supreme Court found the 1971 Florida death penalty statutes inconsistent with Furman. Late in 1972 Florida enacted a new death penalty procedure, 1973 Fla. Laws, c. 72-724, amending, inter alia, §§ 775.082 and 921.141.
The opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Powell, and Mr. Justice Stevens in Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242 (1976), in which the constitutionality of this statute was upheld, details at length the operation of the revised § 921.141. 428 U. S., at 247-251. After a defendant is found guilty of a capital felony, a separate sentencing hearing is held before the trial judge and the trial jury. Any evidence that the judge deems relevant to sentencing may be admitted, and certain evidence relating to aggravating or mitigating circumstances must be admitted. The jury, by a majority vote, then renders an advisory decision, not binding on the court, based upon these aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The court must then also weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. If the court imposes a sentence of death, it must set forth written findings of fact regarding the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. A judgment of conviction and sentence of death is then subject to an automatic, priority review by the Florida Supreme Court. It is in the light of these changes that we must adjudge petitioner’s ex post facto claims.
A
Petitioner argues that the change in the role of the judge and jury in the imposition of the death sentence in Florida between the time of the first-degree murder and the time of the trial constitutes an ex post facto violation. Petitioner views the change in the Florida death-sentencing procedure as depriving him of a substantial right to have the jury determine, without review by the trial judge, whether that penalty should be imposed. We conclude that the changes in the law are procedural, and on the whole ameliorative, and that there is no ex posto facto violation.
Article I, § 10, of the United States Constitution prohibits a State from passing any “ex post facto Law.” Our cases have not attempted to precisely delimit the scope of this Latin phrase, but have instead given it substance by an accretion of case law. In Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U. S. 167, 169-170 (1925), Mr. Justice Stone summarized for the Court the characteristics of an ex post facto law:
“It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto.”
It is equally well settled, however, that “[t]he inhibition upon the passage of ex post facto laws does not give a criminal a right to be tried, in all respects, by the law in force when the crime charged was committed.” Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 566, 590 (1896). “[T]he constitutional provision was intended to secure substantial personal rights against arbitrary and oppressive legislation, see Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U. S. 180, 183, and not to limit the legislative control of remedies and modes of procedure which do not affect matters of substance.” Beazell v. Ohio, supra, at 171.
Even though it may work to the disadvantage of a defendant, a procedural change is not ex post facto. For example, in Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574 (1884), as of the date of the alleged homicide a convicted felon could not have been called as a witness. Subsequent to that date, but prior to the trial of the case, this law was changed; a convicted felon was called to the stand and testified, implicating Hopt in the crime charged against him. Even though this change in the law obviously had a detrimental impact upon the defendant, the Court found that the law was not ex post facto because it neither made criminal a theretofore innocent act, nor aggravated a crime previously committed, nor provided greater punishment, nor changed the proof necessary to convict. Id., at 589.
In Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U. S. 380 (1898), a defendant was convicted of murder solely upon circumstantial evidence. His conviction was reversed by the Missouri Supreme Court because of the inadmissibility of certain evidence. Prior to the second trial, the law was changed to make the evidence admissible and defendant was again convicted. Nonetheless, the Court held that this change was procedural and not vio-lative of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
In the case at hand, the change in the statute was clearly procedural. The new statute simply altered the methods employed in determining whether the death penalty was to be imposed; there was no change in the quantum of punishment attached to the crime. The following language from Hopt v. Utah, supra, applicable with equal force to the case at hand, summarizes our conclusion that the change was procedural and not a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause:
“The crime for which the present defendant was indicted, the punishment prescribed therefor, and the quantity or the degree of proof necessary to establish his guilt, all remained unaffected by the subsequent statute.” 110 U. S., at 589-590.
In this case, not only was the change in the law procedural, it was ameliorative. It is axiomatic that for a law to be ex post facto it must be more onerous than the prior law. Petitioner argues that the change in the law harmed him because the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment would not have been subject to review by the trial judge under the prior law. But it certainly cannot be said with assurance that, had his trial been conducted under the old statute, the jury would have returned a verdict of life.
Hence, petitioner's speculation that the jury would have recommended life were the prior procedure in effect is not compelling. We must compare the two statutory procedures in toto to determine if the new may be fairly characterized as more onerous. Under the old procedure, the death penalty was “presumed” unless the jury, in its unbridled discretion, made a recommendation for mercy. The Florida Legislature enacted the new procedure specifically to provide the constitutional procedural protections required by Furman, thus providing capital defendants with more, rather than less, judicial protection. The protections thus provided, which this Court upheld in Proffitt, are substantial. A separate hearing is held; the defendant is allowed to present any relevant mitigating evidence. The jury renders an advisory verdict based upon its perception of aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. The court makes the final determination, but may impose death only after making a written finding that there are insufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.
Finally, in what may be termed a tripartite review, the Florida Supreme Court is required to review each sentence of death. This required review, not present under the old procedure, is by no means perfunctory; as was noted in Proffitt, as of that time the Florida Supreme Court had vacated 8 of the 21 death sentences that it had reviewed to that date. 428 U. S., at 253. Perhaps most importantly, the Florida Supreme Court has held that the following standard must be used to review a trial court’s rejection of a jury’s recommendation of life:
“In order to sustain a sentence of death following a jury recommendation of life, the facts suggesting a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ.” Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (1975) (emphasis added) (cited with approbation in Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S., at 249).
This crucial protection demonstrates that the new statute affords significantly more safeguards to the defendant than did the old. Death is not automatic, absent a jury recommendation of mercy, as it was under the old procedure. A jury recommendation of life may be overridden by the trial judge only under the exacting standards of Tedder. Hence, defendants are not significantly disadvantaged vis-a-vis the recommendation of life by the jury; on the other hand, unlike the old statute, a jury determination of death is not binding. Under the new statute, defendants have a second chance for life with the trial judge and a third, if necessary, with the Florida Supreme Court. No such protection was afforded by the old statute. Hence, viewing the totality of the procedural changes wrought by the new statute, we conclude that the new statute did not work an onerous application of an ex post facto change in the law. Perhaps the ultimate proof of this fact is that this old statute was held to be violative of the United States Constitution in Donaldson v. Sack, 265 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1972), while the new law was upheld by this Court in Proffitt, supra.
B
Petitioner’s second ex post facto claim is based on the contention that at the time he murdered his children there was no death penalty “in effect” in Florida. This is so, he contends, because the earlier statute enacted by the legislature was, after the time he acted, found by the Supreme Court of Florida to be invalid under our decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972). Therefore, argues petitioner, there was no “valid” death penalty in effect in Florida as of the date of his actions. But this sophistic argument mocks the substance of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Whether or not the old statute would, in the future, withstand constitutional attack, it clearly indicated Florida’s view of the severity of murder and of the degree of punishment which the legislature wished to impose upon murderers. The statute was intended to provide maximum deterrence, and its existence on the statute books provided fair warning as to the degree of culpability which the State ascribed to the act of murder.
Petitioner’s highly technical argument is at odds with the statement of this Court in Chicot County Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U. S. 371, 374 (1940):
“The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of Congress, having been found to be unconstitutional, was not a law; that it was inoperative, conferring no rights and imposing no duties, and hence affording no basis for the challenged decree. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425, 442; Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Hackett, 228 U. S. 559, 566. It is quite clear, however, that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination of unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination, is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored.”
Here the existence of the statute served as an "operative fact” to warn the petitioner of the penalty which Florida would seek to impose on him if he were convicted of first-degree murder. This was sufficient compliance with the ex post facto provision of the United States Constitution.
C
Petitioner’s third ex post facto contention is based on the fact that the new Florida statute provides that anyone sentenced to life imprisonment must serve at least 25 years before becoming eligible for parole. The prior statute contained no such limitation. The Florida Supreme Court in Lee v. State, 294 So. 2d 305 (1974), found that this provision restricting parole could not constitutionally be applied to crimes committed prior to its effective date. Petitioner contends that .nonetheless its enactment by the Florida Legislature amounts to an ex post facto law, and that because of this he may successfully challenge the death sentence imposed upon him.
Petitioner, of course, did not receive a life sentence, and so any added onus attaching to it as a result of the change in Florida law had no effect on him. In Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U. S. 397, 400-401 (1937), the Court stated:
“The effect of the new statute is to make mandatory what was before only the maximum sentence. Under it the prisoners may be held to confinement during the entire fifteen year period. Even if they are admitted to parole, to which they become eligible after the expiration of the terms fixed by the board, they remain subject to its surveillance and the parole may, until the expiration of the fifteen years, be revoked at the discretion of the board or cancelled at the will of the governor. It is true that petitioners might have been sentenced to fifteen years under the old statute. But the ex post facto clause looks to the standard of punishment prescribed by a statute, rather than to the sentence actually imposed. The Constitution forbids the application of any new punitive measure to a crime already consummated, to the detriment or material disadvantage of the wrongdoer. Kring v. Missouri, [107 U. S. 221,] 228-229; In re Medley, 134 U. S. 160, 171; Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343, 351. It is for this reason that an increase in the possible penalty is ex post facto, Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390; Cummings v. Missouri, [4 Wall. 277,] 326; Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U. S. 180, 184, regardless of the length of the sentence actually imposed, since the measure of punishment prescribed by the later statute is more severe than that of the earlier, State v. Callahan, 109 La. 946; 33 So. 931; State v. Smith, 56 Ore. 21; 107 Pac. 980.” (Emphasis added.)
Lifted from their context and read expansively, the emphasized portions of the quoted language would lend some support to petitioner’s claim. But we think that consideration of the Lindsey language in the factual context in which that case was decided does not lead to the result sought by petitioner.
Lindsey came here from the Supreme Court of Washington on a claim that a change in the state law respecting the sentence to be imposed upon one convicted of the felony of grand larceny violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. At the time Lindsey committed the larceny, the law provided for a maximum sentence of 15 years, and a minimum sentence of not less than 6 months. At the time Lindsey was sentenced, the law had been changed to provide for a mandatory 15-year sentence. Even though under the new statute a convict could be admitted to parole at a time far short of the expiration of his mandatory sentence, the Court observed that even on parole he would remain “subject to the surveillance” of the parole board and that his parole itself was subject to revocation.
Lindsey, then, had received a sentence under the new law which was within permissible bounds under the old law, albeit at the outer limits of those bounds. But under the new law it was the only sentence he could have received, while under the old law the sentencing judge could in his discretion have imposed a much shorter sentence. In contrast to the petitioner here, Lindsey was not complaining in the abstract about some change in the law, which as events proved, would have no applicability to his case. His complaint was that the new law totally eliminated any sentence of less than 15 years once he was convicted of larceny, and thereby assured that he would receive what was only the discretionary maximum sentence under the old law.
We think the excerpted language from Lindsey must be read in the light of these facts to mean that one is not barred from challenging a change in the penal code on ex post facto grounds simply because the sentence he received under the new law was not more onerous than that which he might have received under the old. It is one thing to find an ex post facto violation where under the new law a defendant must receive a sentence which was under the old law only the maximum in a discretionary spectrum of length; it would be quite another to do so in a case, such as this, where the change has had no effect on the defendant in the proceedings of which he complains.
Petitioner here can make no claim comparable to Lindsey’s. Under the new law, both life imprisonment and death remain as possible alternative sentences. Only if we were to read the excerpted portion of the quoted language from Lindsey to confer standing on the defendant to complain of an added burden newly attached to a sentence which was never imposed on him would that language assist him. But we hold that petitioner, having been sentenced to death, may not complain of burdens attached to the life sentence under the new law which may not have attached to it under the old.
D
After our Furman decision and its own decision in Donaldson v. Sack, the Florida Supreme Court resentenced all prisoners under sentence of death pursuant to the old statute to life imprisonment. Anderson v. State, 267 So. 2d 8 (1972); In re Baker, 267 So. 2d 331 (1972). Petitioner argues that since his crimes were committed before our decision in Furman, the imposition of the death sentence upon him pursuant to the new statute which was in effect at the time of his trial denies him equal protection of the laws.
But petitioner is simply not similarly situated to those whose sentences were commuted. He was neither tried nor sentenced prior to Furman, as were they, and the only effect of the former statute was to provide sufficient warning of the gravity Florida attached to first-degree murder so as to make the application of this new statute to him consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Florida obviously had to draw the line at some point between those whose cases had progressed sufficiently far in the legal process as to be governed solely by the old statute, with the concomitant unconstitutionality of its death penalty provision, and those whose cases involved acts which could properly subject them to punishment under the new statute. There is nothing irrational about Florida’s decision to relegate petitioner to the latter class, since the new statute was in effect at the time of his trial and sentence.
Ill
There was, understandably, extensive pretrial publicity concerning several aspects of this case. We accept petitioner’s assertion, Brief for Petitioner 38-48, that there was substantial media coverage, including a number of television and radio stories regarding the various aspects of the case.
In Murphy v. Florida, 421 U. S. 794 (1975), we reviewed a trial in which many jurors had heard of the defendant through extensive news coverage. Characterizing our previous cases in which we had overturned a state-court conviction on these grounds as involving “a trial atmosphere that had been utterly corrupted by press coverage,” id., at 798, we recognized:
“Qualified jurors need not, however, be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.
“ ‘To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.’ ” Id., at 799-800, quoting from Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 723 (1961).
We concluded that the petitioner in Murphy had failed to show that the trial setting was inherently prejudicial or that the jury selection process permitted an inference of actual prejudice. 421 U. S., at 803.
The Florida Supreme Court in this case noted that 78 prospective jurors were interviewed, and that petitioner exercised only 27 of his 32 peremptory challenges. Specifically referring to our decision in Murphy, that court concluded:
“[W]e find from the record that the trial judge did everything possible to insure an impartial trial for the defendant. The jurors, carefully and extensively examined by defense counsel to determine that they could be fair and impartial, were sequestered and [a] comprehensive gag order was placed on all participants of the trial.
“Appellant has failed to show that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial, that the setting of his trial was inherently prejudicial.” 328 So. 2d, at 439-440.
Petitioner’s argument that the extensive coverage by the media denied him a fair trial rests almost entirely upon the quantum of publicity which the events received. He has directed us to no specific portions of the record, in particular the voir dire examination of the jurors, which would require a finding of constitutional unfairness as to the method of jury selection or as to the character of the jurors actually selected. But under Murphy, extensive knowledge in the community of either the crimes or the putative criminal is not sufficient by itself to render a trial constitutionally unfair. Petitioner in this case has simply shown that the community was made well aware of the charges against him and asks us on that basis to presume unfairness of constitutional magnitude at his trial. This we will not do in the absence of a “trial atmosphere . . . utterly corrupted by press coverage,” Murphy v. Florida, supra, at 798. One who is reasonably suspected of murdering his children cannbt expect to remain anonymous. Petitioner has failed to convince us that under the “totality of circumstances,” Murphy, supra, the Florida Supreme Court was wrong in finding no constitutional violation with respect to the pretrial publicity. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore
Affirmed.
These background facts, not referred to in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida, 328 So. 2d 433 (1976), are not disputed and are gleaned from the briefs of the parties. See Brief for Petitioner ¿H3; accord, Brief for Respondent 3.
See Florida Appellate Rule 4.5g.
The text of those statutes is as follows:
"Recommendation to mercy — A defendant found guilty by a jury of an offense punishable by death shall be sentenced to death unless the verdict includes a recommendation to mercy by a majority of the jury. When the verdict includes a recommendation to mercy by a majority of the jury, the court shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment. A defendant found guilty by the court of an offense punishable by death on a plea of guilty or when a jury is waived shall be sentenced by the court to death or life imprisonment.” Fla. Stat. Ann. §921.141 (Supp. 1971-1972).
“Penalties for felonies and misdemeanors. — (1) A person who has been convicted of a capital felony shall be punished by death unless the verdict includes a recommendation to mercy by a majority of the jury, in which case the punishment shall be life imprisonment. A defendant found guilty by the court of a capital felony on a plea of guilty or when a jury is waived shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, and [sic] the discretion of the court.” Fla. Stat. Ann. §775.082 (1971).
The constitutionality of this statute has been upheld by the Florida Supreme Court, State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1 (1973), and by this Court, Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242 (1976).
The full text of revised § 921.141 (Supp. 1976-1977) is as follows:
“921.141 Sentence of death or life imprisonment for capital felonies; further proceedings to determine sentence
“(1) Separate proceedings on issue of penalty. — Upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of a defendant of a capital felony, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment as authorized by § 775.082. The proceeding shall be conducted by the trial judge before the trial jury as soon as practicable. If, through impossibility or inability, the trial jury is unable to reconvene for a hearing on the issue of penalty, having determined the guilt of the accused, the trial judge may summon a special juror or jurors as provided in Chapter 913 to determine the issue of the imposition of the penalty. If the trial jury has been waived, or if the defendant pleaded guilty, the sentencing proceeding shall be conducted before a jury impaneled for that purpose, unless waived by the defendant. In the proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence, and shall include matters relating to any of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances enumerated in subsections (6) and (7). Any such evidence which the court deems to have probative value may be received, regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence, provided the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements. However, this subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the constitutions of the United States or of the State of Florida. The state and the defendant or his counsel shall be permitted to present argument for or against sentence of death.
“(2) Advisory sentence by the jury. — After hearing all the evidence, the jury shall deliberate and render an advisory sentence to the court, based upon the following matters:
“(a) Whether sufficient aggravating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (6);
“ (b) Whether sufficient mitigating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (7), which outweigh the aggravating circumstances found to exist; and
“(c) Based on these considerations, whether the defendant should be sentenced to life [imprisonment] or death.
“(3) Findings in support of sentence of death. — Notwithstanding the recommendation of a majority of the jury, the court after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances shall enter a sentence of life imprisonment or death, but if the court imposes a sentence of death, it shall set forth in writing its findings upon which the sentence of death is based as to the facts:
“(a) That sufficient aggravating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (6), and
“(b) That there are insufficient mitigating circumstances, as enumerated in subsection (7), to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.
“In each case in which the court imposes the death sentence, the determination of the court shall be supported by specific written findings of fact based upon the circumstances in subsections (6) and (7) and upon the records of the trial and the sentencing proceedings. If the court does not make the findings requiring the death sentence, the court shall impose sentence of life imprisonment in accordance with section 775.082.
“(4) Review of judgment and sentence. — The judgment of conviction and sentence of death shall be subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court of Florida within sixty (60) days after certification by the sentencing court of the entire record, unless the time is extended for an additional period not to exceed thirty (30) days by the Supreme Court for good cause shown. Such review by the Supreme Court shall have priority over all other cases and shall be heard in accordance with rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.
“(5) Aggravating circumstances. — Aggravating circumstances shall be limited to the following:
“(a) The capital felony was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment.
“(b) The defendant was previously convicted of another capital felony or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person.
“(c) The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons.
“(d) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged, ox was an accomplice, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy or the unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.
“(e) The capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody.
“ (f) The capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain.
“(g) The capital felony was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws.
“(h) The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
“(6) Mitigating circumstances. — Mitigating circumstances shall be the following:
“(a) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity.
“(b) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
“(c) The victim was a participant in the defendant’s conduct or consented to the act.
“(d) The defendant was an accomplice in the capital felony committed by another person and his participation was relatively minor.
“(e) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.
“(f) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.
“ (g) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.”
These are independent bases for our decision. For example, in Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U. S. 167 (1925), we found a procedural change not ex post facto even though the change was by no means ameliorative.
For example, the jury’s recommendation may have been affected by the fact that the members of the jury were not the final arbiters of life or death. They may have chosen leniency when they knew that that decision rested ultimately on the shoulders of the trial judge, but might not have followed the same course if their vote were final.
Since that time, the State informs us, the Florida Supreme Court has reversed nine death sentences, and affirmed eight. Brief for Respondent 18-19, n. 3; Respondent’s Notice of Additional Authority.
The faGt that the trial judge imposed a death sentence after the jury had recommended life in this case in no way denigrates the procedural protections afforded by the new procedure. The judge did so in circumstances where there were obvious and substantial aggravating factors, and where there had been no significant mitigating factors adduced. To demonstrate that it was the nature of the crime, rather than the scope of the procedure, that resulted in the death sentence in this case, we set forth in extenso the conclusions of the trial court at the sentencing phase:
“There are sufficient ajad great aggravating circumstances which exist to justify the sentence of death.
“In concluding my findings I would like to point out that my 22 years of legal, experience have been almost exclusively in the field of criminal law.
“The Judge of this Court has been a defense attorney of criminal cases, a prosecutor for eight and one half years and a Criminal Court Judge and a Circuit Judge — Felony Division for three and one half years.
“During this [sic] 22 years I have defended, prosecuted and held trial oí almost every type of serious crime. During these years of legal experience I have never known of a more heinous, atrocious and cruel crime than this one.
“My experience with the sordid, tragic and violent side of life has not been confined to the Courtroom. During World War II, I was a United States Army Paratrooper and served overseas in ground combat. I have had friends blown to bits and have seen death and suffering in every conceivable form.
“I am not easily shocked or [ajffected by tragedy or cruelty — but this murder of a helpless, defenseless and innocent child is the most cruel, atrocious and heinous crime I have eve[r] personally known of — and it is deserving of no sentence but death.” App. 49. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded. | What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"modify",
"remand",
"unusual disposition"
] | [
1
] | sc |
CLINTON v. VIRGINIA.
No. 294.
Argued April 27, 1964.
Decided May 4, 1964.
Calvin H. Childress argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
D. Gardiner Tyler, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs was Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Virginia.
Per Curiam.
The motion to strike the supplemental brief on behalf of the respondent is denied. The judgment is reversed. Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505; Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the type of decision made by the court among the following: Consider "opinion of the court (orally argued)" if the court decided the case by a signed opinion and the case was orally argued. For the 1791-1945 terms, the case need not be orally argued, but a justice must be listed as delivering the opinion of the Court. Consider "per curiam (no oral argument)" if the court decided the case with an opinion but without hearing oral arguments. For the 1791-1945 terms, the Court (or reporter) need not use the term "per curiam" but rather "The Court [said],""By the Court," or "By direction of the Court." Consider "decrees" in the infrequent type of decisions where the justices will typically appoint a special master to take testimony and render a report, the bulk of which generally becomes the Court's decision. This type of decision usually arises under the Court's original jurisdiction and involves state boundary disputes. Consider "equally divided vote" for cases decided by an equally divided vote, for example when a justice fails to participate in a case or when the Court has a vacancy. Consider "per curiam (orally argued)" if no individual justice's name appears as author of the Court's opinion and the case was orally argued. Consider "judgment of the Court (orally argued)" for formally decided cases (decided the case by a signed opinion) where less than a majority of the participating justices agree with the opinion produced by the justice assigned to write the Court's opinion. | What type of decision did the court make? | [
"opinion of the court (orally argued)",
"per curiam (no oral argument)",
"decrees",
"equally divided vote",
"per curiam (orally argued)",
"judgment of the Court (orally argued)",
"seriatim"
] | [
4
] | sc |
UNITED STATES v. FRADY
No. 80-1595.
Argued December 8, 1981
Decided April 5, 1982
O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White, Powell, Rehnquist, and Stevens, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 175. Blackmun, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 175. Brennan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 178. Burger, C. J., and Marshall, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Deputy Solicitor General Frey argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Jensen, and John R. Fisher.
Daniel M. Schember, by appointment of the Court, 454 U. S. 809, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a criminal conviction to be overturned on direct appeal for “plain error” in the jury instructions, even if the defendant failed to object to the erroneous instructions before the jury retired, as required by Rule 30. In this case we are asked to decide whether the same standard of review applies on a collateral challenge to a criminal conviction brought under 28 U. S. C. § 2255.
I
A
Joseph Frady, the respondent, does not dispute that 19 years ago he and Richard Gordon killed Thomas Bennett in the front room of the victim’s house in Washington, D. C. Nonetheless, because the resolution of this case depends on what the jury learned about Frady’s crime, we must briefly recount what happened, as told by the witnesses at Frady’s trial and summarized by the Court of Appeals. See Frady v. United States, 121 U. S. App. D. C. 78, 348 F. 2d 84 (en banc) (Frady I), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 909 (1965).
The events leading up to the killing began at about 4:30 p. m. on March 13, 1963, when two women saw Frady drive slowly by Bennett’s house in an old car. Later, at about 7:00 p. m., Frady, accompanied by Richard Gordon and Gordon’s friend, Elizabeth Ryder, returned to the same block. On this second trip, Ryder overheard Frady say “something about that is the house over there,” at which point Frady and Gordon looked in the direction of the victim’s house.
After reconnoitering Bennett’s home, Frady, Gordon, and Ryder drove across town to a restaurant, where they were joined by George Bennett, Thomas Bennett’s brother. At the restaurant Ryder heard George Bennett tell Frady that “he needed time to get the furniture and things settled.” She also heard Frady ask Bennett “if he hit a man in the chest, could you break a rib and fracture or puncture a lung, could it kill a person?” Bennett answered that “[y]ou have to hit a man pretty hard.” Just before they left the restaurant, Ryder heard George Bennett say: “If you do a good job you will get a bonus.”
Ryder, Gordon, and Frady then set out by car for 11th Place, around the corner from Thomas Bennett’s home, where they parked, leaving the motor running. Gordon and Frady told Ryder they were going “just around the corner.” As Gordon got out, Ryder saw him reach down and pick up something. She could not see exactly what it was, but it “looked like a cuff of a glove or heavy material of some kind.”
A little after 8:30 p. m., a neighbor heard knocking at the front door of Bennett’s house, followed by the noise of a fight in progress. At 8:44 p. m., she called the police. Within a couple of minutes, two policemen in a patrol wagon arrived, and one of them got out in time to see Frady and Gordon emerge from Bennett’s front door.
Inside Bennett’s house, police officers later found a shambles of broken, disordered furniture and blood-spattered walls. Thomas Bennett lay dead in a pool of blood. His neck and chest had suffered horseshoe-shaped wounds from the metal heel plates on Frady’s leather boots and his head was caved in by blows from a broken piece of a tabletop, which, significantly, bore no fingerprints. One of Bennett’s eyes had been knocked from its socket.
Outside, the policeman on foot heard Frady and Gordon exclaim, “The cops!” as they emerged from the house. They immediately took flight, running around the corner toward their waiting automobile. Both officers pursued, one on foot, the other in the police wagon. As Frady and Gordon ran, one of them threw Thomas Bennett’s wallet and a pair of gloves under a parked car. Frady and Gordon managed to reach their waiting automobile and scramble into it without being captured by the officer following on foot, but the patrol wagon arrived in time to block their departure. One of them was then heard to remark, “They’ve got us.” When arrested, Frady and Gordon were covered with their victim’s blood. Unlike their victim, however, neither had sustained an injury, apart from a cut on Gordon’s forehead.
B
Although Frady now admits that the evidence that he and Gordon caused Bennett’s death was “overwhelming,” at his trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Frady defended solely by denying all responsibility for the killing, suggesting through his attorney that another man, the real murderer, had been seen leaving the victim’s house while the police were preoccupied apprehending Frady and Gordon. Consistent with this theory, Frady did not raise any justification, excuse, or mitigating circumstance. A jury convicted Frady of first-degree murder and robbery, and sentenced him to death by electrocution.
Sitting en banc, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld Frady’s first-degree murder conviction by a vote of 8-1. Frady I, supra. Apparently all nine judges would have affirmed a conviction for second-degree murder.
Nevertheless, by a vote of 5-4, the court set aside Frady’s death sentence. The five judges in the majority were unable to agree on a rationale for that result. Four of the five believed the procedures used to instruct and poll the jury on the death penalty were too ambiguous to sustain a sentence of death. The fifth and deciding vote was cast by a judge who believed the District Court should have adopted, for the first time in the District of Columbia, a procedure bifurcating the guilt and sentencing phases of Frady’s trial. 121 U. S. App. D. C., at 85, 348 F. 2d, at 91 (McGowan, J., concurring). By this narrow margin, Frady escaped electrocution.
Frady was then resentenced to a life term. Almost immediately, he began a long series of collateral attacks on his sentence, culminating in the case now before us.
C
Frady initiated the present action by filing a motion under 28 U. S. C. §2255 seeking the vacation of his sentence because the jury instructions used at his trial in 1963 were defective. Specifically, Frady argued that the Court of Appeals, in cases decided after his trial and appeal, had disapproved instructions identical to those used in his case. As determined by these later rulings, the judge at Frady’s trial had improperly equated intent with malice by stating that “a wrongful act . . . intentionally done ... is therefore done with malice aforethought.” See 204 U. S. App. D. C. 234, 236, n. 6, 636 F. 2d 506, 508, n. 6 (1980). Also, the trial judge had incorrectly instructed the jury that “the law infers or presumes from the use of such weapon in the absence of explanatory or mitigating circumstances the existence of the malice essential to culpable homicide.” See id., at 236, 636 F. 2d, at 508. In his §2255 motion Frady contended that these instructions compelled the jury to presume malice and thereby wrongfully eliminated any possibility of a manslaughter verdict, since manslaughter was defined as culpable homicide without malice.
The District Court denied Frady’s §2255 motion, stating that Frady should have challenged the jury instructions on direct appeal, or in one of his many earlier motions. The Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that the proper standard to apply to Frady’s claim is the “plain error” standard governing relief on direct appeal from errors not objected to at trial, Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52(b), rather than the “cause and actual prejudice” standard enunciated in Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977), Francis v. Henderson, 425 U. S. 536 (1976), and Davis v. United States, 411 U. S. 233 (1973), governing relief on collateral attack following procedural default at trial. Finding the challenged instructions to be plainly erroneous, the court vacated Frady’s sentence and remanded the case for a new trial or, more realistically, the entry of a judgment of manslaughter. Over a vigorous dissent, the full Court of Appeals denied the Government a rehearing en banc.
We granted the Government’s petition for a writ of cer-tiorari to review whether the Court of Appeals properly invoked the “plain error” standard in considering Frady’s belated collateral attack. 453 U. S. 911 (1981).
hH I — I
Before we reach the merits, however, we first must consider an objection Frady makes to our grant of certiorari. Frady argues that we should refrain from reviewing the decision below because the issues presented pertain solely to the local law of the District of Columbia, with which we normally do not interfere.
Frady’s contention is that the federal courts in the District of Columbia exercise a purely local jurisdictional function when they rule on a § 2255 motion brought by a prisoner convicted of a local law offense. Thus, according to Frady, the general federal law controlling the disposition of § 2255 motions does not apply to his case. Instead, a special local brand of § 2255 law, developed to implement that section for the benefit of local offenders in the District of Columbia, controls. Frady concludes that we should therefore refrain from disturbing the ruling below, since it is based on an adequate and independent local ground of decision.
To examine Frady’s contention, it is necessary to review some history. When Frady was tried in 1963, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had exclusive jurisdiction over local felonies, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit acted as the local appellate court, issuing binding decisions of purely local law. In 1970, however, the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act (Court Reform Act), 84 Stat. 473, split the local District of Columbia and federal criminal jurisdictions, directing local criminal cases to a newly created local court system and retaining (with minor exceptions) only federal criminal cases in the existing Federal District Court and Court of Appeals.
As part of this division of jurisdiction, the Court Reform Act substituted for § 2255 a new local statute controlling collateral relief for those convicted in the new local trial court. See D. C. Code § 23-110 (1981). The Act, however, did not alter the jurisdiction of the federal courts in the District to hear postconviction motions and appeals brought under § 2255, either by prisoners like Frady who were convicted of local offenses prior to the Act, or by prisoners convicted in federal court after the Act.
The crux of Frady’s argument is that the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment would be violated unless the Court Reform Act is interpreted as implicitly and retroactively splitting, not just the District’s court system, but also the District’s law governing § 2255 motions. According to Frady, equal protection principles require that a § 2255 motion brought by a prisoner convicted of a local crime in Federal District Court prior to the passage of the Court Reform Act be treated identically to a motion under local D. C. Code § 23-110 brought by a prisoner convicted in the local Superior Court after the passage of the Act. Frady suggests that the Court of Appeals for this reason must have ruled on his motion as though it were subject to the local law developed pursuant to § 23-110, and that we should not intervene in this local dispute.
Frady’s argument, however, was neither made to the court below nor followed by it. Nowhere in the Court of Appeals’ opinion — or in the submissions to that court or to the District Court—is there any hint that there may be peculiarities of § 2255 law unique to collateral attack in the District of Columbia. To the contrary, the analysis and authorities cited by the Court of Appeals make it clear that the court relied on the general federal law controlling all § 2255 motions, and did not intend to afford Frady’s § 2255 motion special treatment simply because Frady was convicted under the District of Columbia Code rather than under the United States Code.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals would have erred had it done so. There is no reason to believe that Congress intended the result Frady suggests, and he does not attempt the impossible task of showing that it did. Furthermore, Frady’s suggestions to the contrary notwithstanding, equal protection principles do not require that a motion filed pursuant to § 2255 by a prisoner convicted in the Federal District Court in 1963 be treated as though it had been filed pursuant to D. C. Code §23-110 after 1970. In fact, even those tried in federal court contemporaneously with those tried for the same offense in the local court need not always be treated identically. As we noted in Swain v. Pressley, 430 U. S. 372, 379-380, n. 12 (1977), for example, persons convicted in the local courts are not denied equal protection of the laws simply because they, unlike persons convicted in the federal courts, must bring collateral challenges to their convictions before Art. I judges.
In short, we find no basis whatever for concluding that the ruling below was or should have been grounded on local District of Columbia law, rather than the general federal law applied to all §2255 motions. Therefore, we proceed to the merits.
Ill
A
Nineteen years after his crime, Frady now complains he was convicted by a jury erroneously instructed on the meaning of malice. At trial, however, Frady did not object to the instructions, nor did he raise the issue on direct appeal. Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure declares in pertinent part:
“No party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.”
Rule 52(b), however, somewhat tempers the severity of Rule 30. It grants the courts of appeals the latitude to correct particularly egregious errors on appeal regardless of a defendant’s trial default:
“Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”
Rule 52(b) was intended to afford a means for the prompt redress of miscarriages of justice. By its terms, recourse may be had to the Rule only on appeal from a trial infected with error so “plain” the trial judge and prosecutor were derelict in countenancing it, even absent the defendant’s timely assistance in detecting it. The Rule thus reflects a careful balancing of our need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around against our insistence that obvious injustice be promptly redressed.
Because it was intended for use on direct appeal, however, the “plain error” standard is out of place when a prisoner launches a collateral attack against a criminal conviction after society’s legitimate interest in the finality of the judgment has been perfected by the expiration of the time allowed for direct review or by the affirmance of the conviction on appeal. Nevertheless, in 1980 the Court of Appeals applied the “plain error” standard to Frady’s long-delayed § 2255 motion, as though the clock had been turned back to 1965 when Frady’s case was first before the court on direct appeal. In effect, the court allowed Frady to take a second appeal 15 years after the first was decided.
As its justification for this action, the Court of Appeals pointed to a single phrase to be found in our opinion in Davis v. United States, 411 U. S., at 240-241. There we asserted that “no more lenient standard of waiver should apply” on collateral attack than on direct review. Seizing on this phrase, the Court of Appeals interpreted “no more lenient” as meaning, in effect, no more stringent, and for this reason applied the “plain error” standard for direct review to Frady’s collateral challenge, despite long-established contrary authority.
By adopting the same standard of review for §2255 motions as would be applied on direct appeal, the Court of Appeals accorded no significance whatever to the existence of a final judgment perfected by appeal. Once the defendant’s chance to appeal has been waived or exhausted, however, we are entitled to presume he stands fairly and finally convicted, especially when, as here, he already has had a fair opportunity to present his federal claims to a federal forum. Our trial and appellate procedures are not so unreliable that we may not afford their completed operation any binding effect beyond the next in a series of endless postconviction collateral attacks. To the contrary, a final judgment commands respect.
For this reason, we have long and consistently affirmed that a collateral challenge may not do service for an appeal. See, e. g., United States v. Addonizio, 442 U. S. 178, 184-185 (1979); Hill v. United States, 368 U. S. 424, 428-429 (1962); Sunal v. Large, 332 U. S. 174, 181-182 (1947); Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 274 (1942); Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420, 428 (1912); In re Gregory, 219 U. S. 210, 213 (1911). As we recently had occasion to explain:
“When Congress enacted §2255 in 1948, it simplified the procedure for making a collateral attack on a final judgment entered in a federal criminal case, but it did not purport to modify the basic distinction between direct review and collateral review. It has, of course, long been settled law that an error that may justify reversal on direct appeal will not necessarily support a collateral attack on a final judgment. The reasons for narrowly limiting the grounds for collateral attack on final judgments are well known and basic to our adversary system of justice.” United States v. Addonizio, supra, at 184 (footnotes omitted).
This citation indicates that the Court of Appeals erred in reviewing Frady’s §2255 motion under the same standard as would be used on direct appeal, as though collateral attack and direct review were interchangeable.
Moreover, only five years ago we expressly stated that the plain-error standard is inappropriate for the review of a state prisoner’s collateral attack on erroneous jury instructions:
“Orderly procedure requires that the respective adversaries’ views as to how the jury should be instructed be presented to the trial judge in time to enable him to deliver an accurate charge and to minimize the risk of committing reversible error. It is the rare case in which an improper instruction will justify reversal of a criminal conviction when no objection has been made in the trial court.
“The burden of demonstrating that an erroneous instruction was so prejudicial that it will support a collateral attack on the constitutional validity of a state court’s judgment is even greater than the showing required to establish plain error on direct appeal.” Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U. S. 145, 154 (1977) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted).
Seemingly, we could not have made the point with greater clarity. Of course, unlike in the case before us, in Kibbe the final judgment of a state, not a federal, court was under attack, so considerations of comity were at issue that do not constrain us here. But the Federal Government, no less than the States, has an interest in the finality of its criminal judgments. In addition, a federal prisoner like Frady, unlike his state counterparts, has already had an opportunity to present his federal claims in federal trial and appellate forums. On balance, we see no basis for affording federal prisoners a preferred status when they seek postconviction relief.
In sum, the lower court’s use of the “plain error” standard to review Frady’s § 2255 motion was contrary to long-established law from which we find no reason to depart. We reaffirm the well-settled principle that to obtain collateral relief a prisoner must clear a significantly higher hurdle than would exist on direct appeal.
B
We believe the proper standard for review of Frady’s motion is the “cause and actual prejudice” standard enunciated in Davis v. United States, 411 U. S. 233 (1973), and later confirmed and extended in Francis v. Henderson, 425 U. S. 536 (1976), and Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977). Under this standard, to obtain collateral relief based on trial errors to which no contemporaneous objection was made, a convicted defendant must show both (1) “cause” excusing his double procedural default, and (2) “actual prejudice” resulting from the errors of which he complains. In applying this dual standard to the case before us, we find it unnecessary to determine whether Frady has shown cause, because we are confident he suffered no actual prejudice of a degree sufficient to justify collateral relief 19 years after his crime.
In considering the prejudice, if any, occasioned by the erroneous jury instructions used at Frady’s trial, we note that in Wainwright v. Sykes we refrained from giving “precise content” to the term “prejudice,” expressly leaving to future cases further elaboration of the significance of that term. Id., at 91. While the import of the term in other situations thus remains an open question, our past decisions nevertheless eliminate any doubt about its meaning for a defendant who has failed to object to jury instructions at trial.
Recently, for example, Justice Stevens, in his opinion without dissent in Henderson v. Kibbe, summarized the degree of prejudice we have required a prisoner to show before obtaining collateral relief for errors in the jury charge as “ ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process,’ not merely whether ‘the instruction is undesirable, erroneous, or even universally condemned.’” 431 U. S., at 154 (quoting Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 147, 146 (1973)). We reaffirm this formulation, which requires that the degree of prejudice resulting from instruction error be evaluated in the total context of the events at trial. As we have often emphasized: “[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.” Cupp v. Naughten, supra, at 146-147 (citations omitted). Moreover, “a judgment of conviction is commonly the culmination of a trial which includes testimony of witnesses, argument of counsel, receipt of exhibits in evidence, and instruction of the jury by the judge. Thus not only is the challenged instruction but one of many such instructions, but the process of instruction itself is but one of several components of the trial which may result in the judgment of conviction.” Id., at 147.
We now apply these established standards to Frady’s case.
I — I <
Frady bases his claim that he was prejudiced on his assertion that the jury was not given an adequate opportunity to consider a manslaughter verdict. According to Frady, the trial court’s erroneous instructions relieved the Government of the burden of proving malice, an element of the crime of murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, so that, as Frady would have it, his conviction must be overturned.
So stated, Frady’s claim of actual prejudice has validity only if an error in the instructions concerning an element of the crime charged amounts to prejudice per se, regardless of the particular circumstances of the individual case. Our precedents, however, hold otherwise. Contrary to Frady’s suggestion, he must shoulder the burden of showing, not merely that the errors at his trial created a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.
This Frady has failed to do. At the outset, we emphasize that this would be a different case had Frady brought before the District Court affirmative evidence indicating that he had been convicted wrongly of a crime of which he was innocent. But Frady, it must be remembered, did not assert at trial that he and Richard Gordon beat Thomas Bennett to death without malice. Instead, Frady claimed he had nothing whatever to do with the crime. The evidence, however, was overwhelming, and Frady promptly abandoned that theory on appeal. Frady I, 121 U. S. App. D. C., at 95, 348 F. 2d, at 101. Since that time, Frady has never presented color-able evidence, even from his own testimony, indicating such justification, mitigation, or excuse that would reduce his crime from murder to manslaughter.
Indeed, the evidence in the record compels the conclusion that there was, as the dissenters from the denial of a rehearing en banc below put it, “malice aplenty.” 204 U. S. App. D. C., at 245, 636 F. 2d, at 517. Frady and Gordon twice reconnoitered their victim’s house on the afternoon and evening of the murder. Just before the killing, they were overheard in a conversation suggesting that they “were assassins hired by George Bennett to .do away with his brother.” Frady I, supra, at 97, 348 F. 2d, at 103 (Miller, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). They brought gloves to the scene of the murder which they discarded during their flight from the police, and the murder weapon bore no fingerprints. Finally, there was the unspeakable brutality of the killing itself.
Indeed, the evidence of malice was strong enough that the 10 judges closest to the case — the trial judge and the 9 judges who 17 years ago decided Frady’s appeal en banc — were at that time unanimous in finding the record at least sufficient to sustain a conviction for second-degree murder — a killing with malice. Nine of the ten judges went further, finding the evidence sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict that Frady not only killed with malice, but with premeditated and deliberate intent.
We conclude that the strong uncontradicted evidence of malice in the record, coupled with Frady’s utter failure to come forward with a colorable claim that he acted without malice, disposes of his contention that he suffered such actual prejudice that reversal of his conviction 19 years later could be justified. We perceive no risk of a fundamental miscarriage of justice in this case.
Should any doubt remain, our examination of the jury instructions shows no substantial likelihood that the same jury that found Frady guilty of first-degree murder would have concluded, if only the malice instructions had been better framed, that his crime was only manslaughter. The jury, after all, did not merely find Frady guilty of second-degree murder, which requires only malice. It found Frady guilty of first-degree — deliberate and premeditated — murder.
To see precisely what the jury had to conclude to make this finding, it is necessary to examine the instructions the trial judge gave the jury on the meaning of premeditation and deliberation:
“[Premeditation is the formation of the intent or plan to kill, the formation of a positive design to kill. It must have been considered by the defendants.
“It is your duty to determine from the facts and circumstances in this case as you find them surrounding the killing whether reflection and consideration amounting to deliberation occurred. If so, even though it be of exceedingly brief duration, that is sufficient, because it is the fact of deliberation rather than the length ,of time it continued that is important. Although some appreciable period of time must have elapsed during which the defendants deliberated in order for this element to be established, no particular length of time is necessary for deliberation; and it does not require the lapse of days or hours or even of minutes.” Tr. in No. 402-63 (DC), p. 806, reprinted at App. 28.
By contrast, to have found Frady guilty of manslaughter the jury would have had to find the presence of the kind of excuse, justification, or mitigation that reduces a killing from murder to manslaughter. As the trial court put it:
“The element [sic] the Government must prove in order for you to find the defendants guilty of manslaughter are:
“One, that the defendants inflicted a wound or wounds from which the deceased died, these being inflicted in the District of Columbia.
“Two, that the defendants struck the deceased in sudden passion, without malice, that the defendants’ sudden passion was aroused by adequate provocation. When I say sudden passion, I mean to include rage, resentment, anger, terror and fear; so when I use the expression ‘sudden passion.’ [sic] I include all of these.
“Provacation, [sic] in order to bring a homicide under the offense of manslaughter, must be adequate, must be such as might naturally induce a reasonable man in anger of the moment to commit the deed. It must be such provocation would [sic] have like effect upon the mind of a reasonable or average man causing him to lose his self-control.
“In addition to the great provocation, there must be passion and hot blood caused by that provocation. Mere words, however, no matter how insulting, offensive or abusive, are not adequate to induce [sic] a homicide although committed in passion, provoked, as I have explained, from murder to manslaughter.” Id., at 809, reprinted at App. 30.
Plainly, a rational jury that believed Frady had formed a “plan to kill... a positive design to kill” with “reflection and consideration amounting to deliberation,” could not also have believed that he acted in “sudden passion . . . aroused by adequate provocation . . . causing him to lose his self-control.” We conclude that, whatever it may wrongly have believed malice to be, Frady’s jury would not have found passion and provocation, especially since Frady presented no evidence whatever of mitigating circumstances, but instead defended by disclaiming any involvement with the killing. Surely there is no substantial likelihood the erroneous malice instructions prejudiced Frady’s chances with the jury.
V
In sum, Frady has fallen far short of meeting his burden of showing that he has suffered the degree of actual prejudice necessary to overcome society’s justified interests in the finality of criminal judgments. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The Chief Justice and Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Brief for Appellant in No. 79-2356 (CADC), p. 12 (pro se).
The sole dissenter, Judge J. Skelly Wright, noted that under the law of the District of Columbia an “intent to inflict serious injury, unaccompanied by premeditation, is sufficient for second degree murder, but first degree murder requires, in addition to premeditation, the specific intent to kill.” Frady I, 121 U. S. App. D. C., at 91, n. 13, 348 F. 2d, at 97, n. 13 (dissenting in part and concurring in part) (citations omitted). Because Judge Wright believed the evidence sufficient only to sustain a verdict that Frady deliberately intended to injure Thomas Bennett, Judge Wright would have reversed Frady’s conviction for first-degree murder. Id., at 91, 348 F. 2d, at 97.
In dissent, The Chief Justice (who was then serving as a Circuit Judge on the Court of Appeals) characterized that view as having “no basis without an assumption that these jurors were illiterate morons.” Id., at 107, 348 F. 2d, at 113 (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
As summarized by the Court of Appeals, 204 U. S. App. D. C. 234, 236, n. 2, 636 F. 2d 506, 508, n. 2 (1980), Frady filed four motions to vacate or reduce his sentence in 1965, and one each in 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1978. This last motion resulted in a Court of Appeals decision directing that Frady’s separate sentences for robbery and murder run concurrently rather than consecutively. United States v. Frady, 197 U. S. App. D. C. 69, 607 F. 2d 383 (1979) (Frady II).
Section 2255 provides in pertinent part:
“A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.”
Frady cited Belton v. United States, 127 U. S. App. D. C. 201, 204-205, 382 F. 2d 150, 153-154 (1967); Green v. United States, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 98, 99-100, 405 F. 2d 1368, 1369-1370 (1968) (Green I); and United States v. Wharton, 139 U. S. App. D. C. 293, 297-298, 433 F. 2d 451, 455-456 (1970). The Government does not contest Frady’s assertion that the jury instructions were erroneous as determined by these later rulings.
See, e. g., Fryer v. United States, 93 U. S. App. D. C. 34, 38, 207 F. 2d 134, 138 (manslaughter is “the unlawful killing of a human being without malice”) (emphasis deleted), cert. denied, 346 U. S. 885 (1953); United States v. Wharton, supra, at 296, 433 F. 2d, at 454 (malice is “the sole element differentiating murder from manslaughter”).
Frady also challenged the trial judge’s instruction that “[a] person is presumed to intend the natural [and] probable consequences of his act.” See 204 U. S. App. D. C., at 237, n. 7, 636 F. 2d, at 509, n. 7. Frady argued that this instruction was unconstitutional under our decision in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979), in which we held that a similar instruction that “[t]he law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts” might impermissibly lead a reasonable juror to believe the presumption is conclusive. The Court of Appeals refrained from deciding this issue, however, so we do not consider it here.
As we said in Fisher v. United States, 328 U. S. 463, 476 (1946): “Matters relating to law enforcement in the District [of Columbia] are entrusted to the courts of the District. Our policy is not to interfere with the local rules of law which they fashion, save in exceptional situations where egregious error has been committed.”
Frady, of course, does not argue that we do not have jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1) to hear this case, only that we should, in our discretion, refrain from exercising it.
We note that Frady’s winning pro se brief to the court below, though extensively discussing the general federal law regarding the proper disposition of § 2255 motions, nowhere suggested that special local rules should be applied to the case.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has reached the same conclusion on an analogous issue. See United States v. Brown, 157 U. S. App. D. C. 311, 483 F. 2d 1314 (1973) (federal, not local, bail law applies to an appellant convicted of a local offense in federal court, despite the fact that the harsher local law applies to those convicted of the same offense in the local courts).
We mention in passing that it is unclear that Frady would face law more favorable to his cause were his § 2255 motion treated as though it were a local § 23-110 motion. The highest local court, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, has written that “[o]ur rule, D. C. Code 1973, § 23-110, is nearly identical and functionally equivalent to § 2255, and we may therefore rely on cases construing the federal rule. ” Butler v. United States, 388 A. 2d 883, 886, n. 5 (1978). We express no view on the similarities between § 23-110 and § 2255, however. As Frady has reminded us: “The administration of criminal law in matters not affected by constitutional limitations or a general federal law is a matter peculiarly of local concern.” Fisher v. United States, 328 U. S., at 476.
The Rule merely restated existing law. See Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52(b), 18 U. S. C. App., p. 1478, citing Wiborg v. United States, 163 U. S. 632, 658 (1896) (“although this question was not properly raised, yet if a plain error was committed in a matter so absolutely vital to defendants, we feel ourselves at liberty to correct it”). See also United States v. Atkinson, 297 U. S. 157, 160 (1936) (“In exceptional circumstances, especially in criminal cases, appellate courts, in the public interest, may, of their own motion, notice errors to which no exception has been taken, if the errors are obvious, or if they otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”).
The Courts of Appeals long have recognized that the power granted them by Rule 52(b) is to be used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. See, e. g., United States v. Gerald, 624 F. 2d 1291, 1299 (CA5 1980) (“Plain error is error which is ‘both obvious and substantial’. . . . The plain error rule is not a run-of-the-mill remedy. The intention of the rule is to serve the ends of justice; therefore it is invoked ‘only in exceptional circumstances [where necessary] to avoid a miscarriage of justice’ ” (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 920 (1981); United States v. DiBenedetto, 542 F. 2d 490, 494 (CA8 1976) (“This court, along with courts in general, have applied the plain error rule sparingly and only in situations where it is necessary to do so to prevent a great miscarriage of justice” (citations omitted)).
In the present case we address only the proper standard to be used by a district court engaged pursuant to § 2255 in the collateral review of the original criminal trial. We of course do not hold that the “plain error” standard cannot be applied by a court of appeals on direct review of a district court’s conduct of the § 2255 hearing itself.
Justice Brennan in his dissenting opinion, post, at 182-183, and Justice Blackmun in his opinion concurring in the judgment, post, at 176, and n., point out that §2255 Rule 12 directs that “[i]f no procedure is specifically prescribed by these rules, the district court may proceed in any lawful manner not inconsistent with these rules, or any applicable statute, and may apply the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whichever it deems more appropriate, to motions filed under these rules.” Justices Brennan and Blackmun contend that the procedural directive of §2255 Rule 12 indicates that the “plain error” standard of Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applies to the district court’s collateral review of the original trial. They do not point to any evidence that § 2255 Rule 12 was intended to have such a surprising effect, however.
By approving § 2255 Rule 12, we believe Congress intended merely to authorize a court in its discretion to use the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to regulate the conduct of a § 2255 proceeding. A court of appeals, for example, could invoke the “plain error” standard on direct review of a district court’s conduct of a § 2255 hearing, if the court of appeals found a sufficiently egregious error in the § 2255 proceeding itself that had not been brought to the attention of the district court. Thus, as § 2255 Rule 12 suggests, under proper circumstances Rule 52(b) can play a role in §2255 proceedings.
We also note that, contrary to the suggestions in the dissenting opinion, § 2255 Rule 12 does not mandate by its own force the use of any particular Rule of Civil or Criminal Procedure. The Advisory Committee’s Note to §2255 Rule 12, 28 U. S. C., p. 287, refers the reader “[f]or discussion” of possible restrictions on the use of the Rules of Procedure to the Note to the analogous provision governing proceedings under 28 U. S. C. §2254, § 2254 Rule 11 (which provides: “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to petitions filed under these rules”). The Advisory Committee’s Note to § 2254 Rule 11, 28 U. S. C., p. 275, explains that the Rule “allow[s] the court considering the petition to use any of the rules of civil procedure (unless inconsistent with these rules of habeas corpus) when in its discretion the court decides they are appropriate under the circumstances of the particular ease. The court does not have to rigidly apply rules which would be inconsistent or inequitable in the overall framework of habeas corpus.” As we have explained in the text above, use of the “plain error” standard is “inconsistent or inequitable in the overall framework” of collateral review of federal criminal convictions under § 2255.
Frady claims that he had “cause” not to object at trial or on appeal because those proceedings occurred before the decisions of the Court of Appeals disapproving the erroneous instructions. Any objection, he asserts, therefore would have been futile.
In this regard, the Government points out that the first case to reject the jury instructions Frady now attacks was decided only two years after Frady’s appeal was decided. Belton v. United States, 127 U. S. App. D. C. 201, 382 F. 2d 150 (1967). The Belton court seemed to consider the law as clearcut, and attributed the erroneous instruction to inadvertence by the trial judge, stating: “We have little doubt that if objection had been made this slip of the tongue by a capable trial judge — assuming the reporter heard him right — would have been corrected.” Id., at 205, 382 F. 2d, at 154. Likewise, in Green I, the court asserted that the trial court had given the erroneous instruction “no doubt inadvertently.” 132 U. S. App. D. C., at 100, 405 F. 2d, at 1370. In light of these decisions, the Government argues here that “[i]t is difficult to believe that it would have been futile in 1965 for respondent to present his current objections to the jury instructions to the court of appeals that decided Belton in 1967 and Green I in 1968.” Brief for United States 33. See Engle v. Isaac, ante, p. 107, in which we addressed a similar argument.
Kibbe involved a habeas petition brought by a state, not a federal, convict. As we noted supra, at 166, however, the federal interest in finality is as great as the States’, and the relevant federal constitutional strictures apply with equal force to both jurisdictions.
At the time Frady was tried, murder in the first degree was defined (and still is) as a killing committed “purposely” “of deliberate and premeditated malice.” D. C. Code § 22-2401 (1981). Murder in the second degree was defined as a killing (other than a first-degree murder) with “malice aforethought.” § 22-2403. Culpable killings without malice were defined to be manslaughter. See n. 7, supra.
The District of Columbia statutes defining murder in the first and second degree were first passed at the turn of the century, Act of Mar. 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1321, ch. 854, §§ 798, 800, as a codification of the common-law definitions, which they did not displace. See O’Connor v. United States, 399 A. 2d 21 (D. C. 1979); Hamilton v. United States, 26 App. D. C. 382, 385 (1905). The definition of manslaughter was never codified, but remains a matter of common law. See United States v. Pender, 309 A. 2d 492 (D. C. 1973).
The significance of the various degrees of homicide under the law of the District was summarized by the Court of Appeals in 1967:
“In homespun terminology, intentional murder is in the first degree if committed in cold blood, and is murder in the second degree if committed on impulse or in the sudden heat of passion. ... [A] homicide conceived in passion constitutes murder in the first degree only if the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an appreciable time after the design was conceived and that in this interval there was a further thought, and a turning over in the mind — and not a mere persistence of the initial impulse of passion.
. . An unlawful killing in the sudden heat of passion — whether produced by rage, resentment, anger, terror or fear — is reduced from murder to manslaughter only if there was adequate provocation, such as might naturally induce a reasonable man in the passion of the moment to lose self-control and commit the act on impulse and without reflection.” Austin v. United States, 127 U. S. App. D. C. 180, 188, 382 F. 2d 129, 137 (citations omitted).
The policy basis for the distinction between first-degree murder and other homicides was explained in Bullock v. United States, 74 App. D. C. 220, 221, 122 F. 2d 213, 214 (1941):
“Statutes like ours, which distinguish deliberate and premeditated murder from other murder, reflect a belief that one who meditates an intent to kill and then deliberately executes it is more dangerous, more culpable or less capable of reformation than one who kills on sudden impulse; or that the prospect of the death penalty is more likely to deter men from deliberate than from impulsive murder. The deliberate killer is guilty of first degree murder; the impulsive killer is not.”
Nor, on the facts of this case, would a finding of a premeditated and deliberate intent to kill be consistent as a matter of law with an absence of malice. See n. 18, supra.
We are not alone in finding that an erroneous malice instruction is not necessarily cause for reversal. Even on direct appeal rather than on collateral attack, the highest court in the District of Columbia has refused to reverse convictions obtained after the use of precisely the same instructions of which Frady complains here. For example, in Belton v. United States, 127 U. S. App. D. C. 201, 382 F. 2d 150 (1967), the first decision expressly to disapprove the instruction that the law infers malice from the use of a deadly weapon, the court affirmed a first-degree murder conviction with the observation that a “jury inferring premeditation and deliberation could hardly have failed to infer malice.” Id., at 206, 382 F. 2d, at 155. Similarly, in Howard v. United States, 128 U. S. App. D. C. 336, 389 F. 2d 287 (1967), a second-degree murder conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, although the same defective instruction had been given. In two cases in which the defendants put malice in issue by raising self-defense claims at trial, however, the court, on direct appeal, reversed murder convictions obtained through the use of the faulty instructions. Green I, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 98, 405 F. 2d 1368 (1968); United States v. Wharton, 139 U. S. App. D. C. 293, 433 F. 2d 451 (1970). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence. | What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision? | [
"judicial review (national level)",
"judicial review (state level)",
"Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction",
"statutory construction",
"interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order",
"diversity jurisdiction",
"federal common law"
] | [
3
] | sc |
KIRK v. LOUISIANA
No. 01-8419.
Decided June 24, 2002
Per Curiam.
Police officers entered petitioner’s home, where they arrested and searched him. The officers had neither an arrest warrant nor a search warrant. Without deciding whether exigent circumstances had been present, the Louisiana Court of Appeal concluded that the warrantless entry, arrest, and search did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution because there had been probable cause to arrest petitioner. 00-0190 (La. App. 11/15/00), 773 So. 2d 259. The court’s reasoning plainly violates our holding in Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 590 (1980), that “[a]bsent exigent circumstances,” the “firm line at the entrance to the house ... may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” We thus grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the officers’ actions were lawful, absent exigent circumstances.
On an evening in March 1998, police officers observed petitioner’s apartment based on an anonymous citizen complaint that drug sales were occurring there. After witnessing what appeared to be several drug purchases and allowing the buyers to leave the scene, the officers stopped one of the buyers on the street outside petitioner’s residence. The officers later testified that “[b]ecause the stop took place within a block of the apartment, [they] feared that evidence would be destroyed and ordered that the apartment be entered.” 00-0190, at 2, 773 So. 2d, at 261. Thus, “[t]hey immediately knocked on the door of the apartment, arrested-the defendant, searched him thereto and discovered the cocaine and the money.” Id., at 4, 773 So. 2d, at 263. Although the officers sought and obtained a search warrant while they detained petitioner in his home, they only obtained this warrant after they had entered his home, arrested him, frisked him, found a drug vial in his underwear, and observed contraband in plain view in the apartment.
Based on these events, petitioner was charged in a Louisiana court with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained by the police as a result of their warrantless entry, arrest, and search. After holding a suppression hearing, the trial court denied this motion. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 15 years at hard labor.
On direct review to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, petitioner challenged the trial court's suppression ruling. He argued that the police were not justified in entering his home without a warrant absent exigent circumstances. The Court of Appeal acknowledged petitioner’s argument: “[Petitioner] makes a long argument that there were not exigent circumstances for entering the apartment without a warrant.” Id., at 2, 773 So. 2d, at 261. The court, however, declined to decide whether exigent circumstances had been present, because “the evidence required to prove that the defendant possessed cocaine with the intent to distribute, namely the cocaine and the money, was not found in the apartment, but on his person.” Ibid. The court concluded that because “[t]he officers had probable cause to arrest and properly searched the defendant incident thereto . . . [, t]he trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.” Id., at 4, 773 So. 2d, at 263.
The Louisiana Supreme Court denied review by a vote of 4 to 3. In a written dissent, Chief Justice Calogero explained:
“The Fourth Amendment to the United States constitution has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the home, and thus, the police need both probable cause to either arrest or search and exigent circumstances to justify a nonconsensual warrantless intrusion into private premises. . . . Here, the defendant was arrested inside an apartment, without a warrant, and the state has not demonstrated that exigent circumstances were present. Consequently, defendant’s arrest was unconstitutional, and his motion to suppress should have been granted.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 1-2.
We agree with Chief Justice Calogero that the Court of Appeal clearly erred by concluding that petitioner’s arrest and the search “incident thereto,” 00-0190, at 4, 773 So. 2d, at 263, were constitutionally permissible. In Payton, we examined whether the Fourth Amendment was violated by a state statute that authorized officers to “enter a private residence without a warrant and with force, if necessary, to make a routine felony arrest.” 445 U. S., at 574. We determined that “the reasons for upholding warrantless arrests in a public place do not apply to warrantless invasions of the privacy of the home.” Id., at 576. We held that because “the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house ... [, a]bsent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” Id., at 590. And we noted that an arrest warrant founded on probable cause, as well as a search warrant, would suffice for entry. Id., at 603.
Here, the police had neither an arrest warrant for petitioner, nor a search warrant for petitioner’s apartment, when they entered his home, arrested him, and searched him. The officers testified at the suppression hearing that the reason for their actions was a fear that evidence would be destroyed, but the Louisiana Court of Appeal did not determine that such exigent circumstances were present. Rather, the court, in respondent’s own words, determined “thát the defendant’s argument that there were no exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless entry of the apartment was irrelevant” to the constitutionality of the officers’ actions. Brief in Opposition 2-3. As Payton makes plain, police officers need either a warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances in order to make a lawful entry into a home. The Court of Appeal’s ruling to the contrary, and consequent failure to assess whether exigent circumstances were present in this case, violated Payton.
Petitioner and respondent both dispute at length whether exigent circumstances were, in fact, present. We express no opinion on that question, nor on respondent’s argument that any Fourth Amendment violation was cured because the police had an “independent source” for the recovered evidence. Brief in Opposition 8. Rather, we reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment that exigent circumstances were not required to justify the officers’ conduct, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
We also grant petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the disposition of the case, that is, the treatment the Supreme Court accorded the court whose decision it reviewed. The information relevant to this variable may be found near the end of the summary that begins on the title page of each case, or preferably at the very end of the opinion of the Court. For cases in which the Court granted a motion to dismiss, consider "petition denied or appeal dismissed". There is "no disposition" if the Court denied a motion to dismiss. | What is the disposition of the case, that is, the treatment the Supreme Court accorded the court whose decision it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed (includes modified)",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"certification to or from a lower court",
"no disposition"
] | [
3
] | sc |
OHIO v. JOHNSON
No. 83-904.
Argued April 25, 1984
Decided June 11, 1984
John E. Shoop argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Judson J. Hawkins and Joseph M. Gurley.
Albert L. Purola, by appointment of the Court, 465 U. S. 1019, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Trott, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, Carter G. Phillips, and Kathleen A. Felton filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Kenneth Johnson was indicted by an Ohio grand jury for four offenses, ranging from murder to grand theft, as a result of the killing of Thomas Hill and the theft of property from Hill’s apartment. Respondent offered to plead guilty to charges of involuntary manslaughter and grand theft, but pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and aggravated robbery. Over the State’s objection, the trial court accepted the “guilty” pleas to the lesser offenses, and then granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the two most serious charges on the ground that because of his guilty pleas, further prosecution on the more serious offenses was barred by the double jeopardy prohibitions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This judgmént was affirmed on appeal through the Ohio state courts, and we granted certiorari. 465 U. S. 1004 (1984). We now reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio and hold that prosecuting respondent on the two more serious charges would not constitute the type of “multiple prosecution” prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Thomas Hill was shot to death in his apartment in the city of Mentor-on-the-Lake, a city northeast of Cleveland on Lake Erie. Several weeks later, a county grand jury indicted respondent on one count each of murder, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated robbery, and grand theft. Meanwhile, respondent had left Ohio and was not arraigned on the charges until nearly two years after the killing. At his arraignment respondent offered to plead guilty only to the charges of involuntary manslaughter and grand theft, while pleading not guilty to the more serious offenses of murder and aggravated robbery. Over the State’s objection, the trial court accepted the guilty pleas and sentenced respondent to a term of imprisonment. App. 19-21. Respondent then moved to dismiss the remaining charges against him on the ground that their further prosecution would violate his right under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment not to be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense. The trial court granted respondent’s motion and dismissed the remaining charges, finding that because involuntary manslaughter and grand theft were, respectively, lesser included offenses of the remaining charges of murder and aggravated robbery, continued prosecution of the greater offenses after acceptance of respondent’s guilty pleas on the lesser offenses was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. App. to Pet. for Cert. A24.
The Ohio Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the decision of the trial court. 6 Ohio St. 3d 420, 453 N. E. 2d 595 (1983). The State Supreme Court held that in these circumstances aggravated robbery was an “allied offens[e] of similar import” to theft, id., at 422, 453 N. E. 2d, at 598, and reasoned that since state law permitted conviction on only one of these charges, acceptance of respondent’s guilty plea to the charge of theft prevented conviction for the charge of aggravated robbery. The crime of involuntary manslaughter was held to be distinguishable from the offense of murder only by the mental states required to commit each offense, but that in any one killing, an offender could only be convicted of involuntary manslaughter or murder, but not both crimes.
We think the Supreme Court of Ohio was mistaken in its observation that “this case concerns the third double jeopardy protection prohibiting multiple punishments for the same offense.” Id., at 421, 453 N. E. 2d, at 598. The Double Jeopardy Clause, of course, affords a defendant three basic protections:
'“[It] protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.’” Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161, 165 (1977), quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 717 (1969).
As we have explained on numerous occasions, the bar to retrial following acquittal or conviction ensures that the State does not make repeated attempts to convict an individual, thereby exposing him to continued embarrassment, anxiety, and expense, while increasing the risk of an erroneous conviction or an impermissibly enhanced sentence. See, e. g., United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332, 343 (1975); Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187-188 (1957).
In contrast to the double jeopardy protection against multiple trials, the final component of double jeopardy — protection against cumulative punishments — is designed to ensure that the sentencing discretion of courts is confined to the limits established by the legislature. Because the substantive power to prescribe crimes and determine punishments is vested with the legislature, United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 93 (1820), the question under the Double Jeopardy Clause whether punishments are “multiple” is essentially one of legislative intent, see Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U. S. 359, 366-368 (1983). But where a defendant is retried following conviction, the Clause’s third protection ensures that after a subsequent conviction a defendant receives credit for time already served. North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, at 718.
We accept, as we must, the Ohio Supreme Court’s determination that the Ohio Legislature did not intend cumulative punishment for the two pairs of crimes involved here. But before respondent can ever be punished for the offenses of murder and aggravated robbery he will first have to be found guilty of those offenses. The trial court’s dismissal of these more serious charges did more than simply prevent the imposition of cumulative punishments; it halted completely the proceedings that ultimately would have led to a verdict of guilt or innocence on these more serious charges. Presumably the trial court, in the event of a guilty verdict on the more serious offenses, will have to confront the question of cumulative punishments as a matter of state law, but because of that court’s ruling preventing even the trial of the more serious offenses, that stage of the prosecution was never reached. While the Double Jeopardy Clause may protect a defendant against cumulative punishments for convictions on the same offense, the Clause does not prohibit the State from prosecuting respondent for such multiple offenses in a single prosecution.
Respondent urges, as an alternative basis for affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio, that further prosecution of the counts which were dismissed would violate the double jeopardy prohibition against multiple prosecutions. Brief for Respondent 17-18. He concedes that on the authority of our decision in Brown v. Ohio, supra, the State is not prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause from charging respondent with greater and lesser included offenses and prosecuting those offenses in a single trial. Brief for Respondent 7. But, he argues, his conviction and sentence on the charges of involuntary manslaughter and grand theft mean that further prosecution on the remaining offenses will implicate the double jeopardy protection against a second prosecution following conviction. The court below never had occasion to address this argument.
The answer to this contention seems obvious to us. Respondent was indicted on four related charges growing out of a murder and robbery. The grand jury returned a single indictment, and all four charges were embraced within a single prosecution. Respondent’s argument is apparently based on the assumption that trial proceedings, like amoebae, are capable of being infinitely subdivided, so that a determination of guilt and punishment on one count of a multicount indictment immediately raises .a double jeopardy bar to continued prosecution on any remaining counts that are greater or lesser included offenses of the charge just concluded. We have never held that, and decline to hold it now.
Previously we have recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits prosecution of a defendant for a greater offense when he has already been tried and acquitted or convicted on the lesser included offense. See Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161 (1977). In Brown the State first charged the defendant with “joyriding,” that is, operating an auto without the owner’s consent. The defendant pleaded guilty to this charge and was sentenced. Subsequently, the State indicted the defendant for auto theft and joyriding, charges which this Court held were barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, since the defendant had previously been convicted in a separate proceeding of joyriding, which was a lesser included offense of auto theft. Brown v. Ohio, supra, at 169.
We do not believe, however, that the principles of finality and prevention of prosecutorial overreaching applied in Brown reach this case. No interest of respondent protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause is implicated by continuing prosecution on the remaining charges brought in the indictment. Here respondent offered only to resolve part of the charges against him, while the State objected to disposing of any of the counts against respondent without a trial. Respondent has not been exposed to conviction on the charges to which he pleaded not guilty, nor has the State had the opportunity to marshal its evidence and resources more than once or to hone its presentation of its case through a trial. The acceptance of a guilty plea to lesser included offenses while charges on the greater offenses remain pending, moreover, has none of the implications of an “implied acquittal” which results from a verdict convicting a defendant on lesser included offenses rendered by a jury charged to consider both greater and lesser included offenses. Cf. Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323, 329 (1970); Green v. United States, 355 U. S., at 191. There simply has been none of the governmental overreaching that double jeopardy is supposed to prevent. On the other hand, ending prosecution now would deny the State its right to one full and fair opportunity to convict those who have violated its laws. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U. S. 497, 509 (1978).
We think this is an even clearer case than Jeffers v. United States, 432 U. S. 137 (1977), where we rejected a defendant’s claim of double jeopardy based upon a guilty verdict in the first of two successive prosecutions, when the defendant had been responsible for insisting that there be separate rather than consolidated trials. Here respondent’s efforts were directed to separate disposition of counts in the same indictment where no more than one trial of the offenses charged was ever contemplated. Notwithstanding the trial court’s acceptance of respondent’s guilty pleas, respondent should not be entitled to use the Double Jeopardy Clause as a sword to prevent the State from completing its prosecution on the remaining charges.
For the foregoing reasons we hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the State from continuing its prosecution of respondent on the charges of murder and aggravated robbery. Accordingly, the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The elements of murder in Ohio are:
“(A) No person shall purposely cause the death of another.
“(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of murder, and shall be punished as provided in section 2929.02 of the Revised Code.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2903.02 (1982).
The elements of the crime of involuntary manslaughter are:
“(A) No person shall cause the death of another as a proximate result of the offender’s committing or attempting to commit a felony.
“(B) No person shall cause the death of another as a proximate result of the offender’s committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor.
“(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Violation of division (A) of this section is a felony of the first degree. Violation of division (B) of this section is a felony of the third degree.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2903.04 (1982 and Supp. 1983).
The Ohio statutory elements of the crime of aggravated robbery are:
“(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or in fleeing immediately after such attempt or offense, shall do either of the following:
“(1) Have a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance ... on or about his person or under his control;
“(2) Inflict, or attempt to inflict serious physical harm on another.
“(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated robbery, a felony of the first degree.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2911.01 (1982 and Supp. 1983).
The crime of grand theft in Ohio is defined as follows:
“(A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either:
“(1) Without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent;
“(2) Beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent;
“(3) By deception;
“(4) By threat.
“(B) ... If the value of the property or services stolen is one hundred fifty dollars or more, or if the property stolen is any of the property listed in section 2913.71 of the Revised Code, or if the offender has previously been convicted of a theft offense, a violation of this section is grand theft, a felony of the fourth degree.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2913.02 (1982 and Supp. 1983).
The term “allied offense,” has been interpreted to mean that two crimes share common elements such that the commission of one crime will necessitate commission of the other. State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St. 2d 126, 128, 397 N. E. 2d 1345, 1347 (1979).
We agree with respondent that the most logical interpretation of the holding below is that the court found involuntary manslaughter to be a lesser included offense of murder. In one sentence of the opinion, however, the mental states of the two crimes are considered mutually exclusive, which would suggest that conviction on one is inconsistent with conviction on the other. See 6 Ohio St. 3d, at 424, 453 N. E. 2d, at 599. In the very next sentence, however, the opinion states that the two offenses are the same under the Blockburger test, i. e., involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of the crime of murder. This interpretation accords with the statement in the opinion that the principles of collateral estoppel applied in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436 (1970), have no relevance to this case.
We face at the threshold an attack on our jurisdiction to review the decision below. Respondent seizes upon the Ohio Supreme Court’s reference to state law in its syllabus and in the accompanying opinion to argue that the decision below rested on an adequate and independent state ground. Ordinarily, we have jurisdiction to review a state-court judgment, if the decision “appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law,” or if the “adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1040-1041 (1983).
Here, that presumption must be applied in light of the syllabus rule of the Ohio Supreme Court, which provides that the holding of the case appears in the syllabus, since that is the only portion of the opinion on which a majority of the court must agree. See State ex rel. Donahey v. Edmondson, 89 Ohio St. 93, 105 N. E. 269 (1913); see also Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U. S. 437, 441-442 (1952). But Ohio courts do not suggest that the opinion is not germane to interpreting the court’s holding as expressed in its syllabus. Hart v. Andrews, 103 Ohio St. 218, 221, 132 N. E. 846, 847 (1921). Indeed, where the grounds of the decision are not clearly predicated on state law, we have felt compelled to examine the opinion below to determine whether the Ohio Supreme Court may have ruled differently if it “had felt free, under our decisions, to do so.” Perkins, supra, at 443.
A review of the court’s syllabus indicates that the court did not articulate an independent state-law ground for the decision. The first part of the syllabus refers to state law in determining that, as allied offenses, the State may only obtain convictions on either aggravated robbery or grand theft, but not both. But the syllabus does not explain why the State may not continue to press forward with its prosecution of respondent for aggravated robbery, since the multicount statute that bars multiple convictions for allied offenses plainly admits to the possibility that the State may prosecute allied offenses in a single prosecution. See Ohio Rev. Code. Ann. §2941.25 (1982 and Supp. 1983). A look at the opinion accompanying the syllabus, however, shows that the judge writing the opinion believed that continued prosecution of respondent on the remaining charges was proscribed by the double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments. 6 Ohio St. 3d, at 421, 453 N. E. 2d, at 597. The federal ground for the court’s decision affirming the dismissal of the murder charge is much easier to discern, since the text of the court’s syllabus refers directly to the prohibition against double jeopardy. Although the court’s reference to double jeopardy might arguably be to the Ohio version, see Ohio Const., Art. I, § 10, the failure to indicate clearly that state double jeopardy protection was being invoked, when coupled with the references in the opinion to our decisions in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969), and Ashe v. Swenson, supra, convinces us that the Ohio Supreme Court based its decision on its interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the federal courts the test established in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U. S. 299, 304 (1932), ordinarily determines whether the crimes are indeed separate and whether cumulative punishments may be imposed. See Albemaz v. United States, 450 U. S. 333, 337 (1981); Whalen v. United States, 445 U. S. 684, 691 (1980). As should be evident from our decision in Missouri v. Hunter, however, the Blockburger test does not necessarily control the inquiry into the intent of a state legislature. Even if the crimes are the same under Blockburger, if it is evident that a state legislature intended to authorize cumulative punishments, a court’s inquiry is at an end.
Respondent also argues that prosecution on the remaining charges is barred by the principles of collateral estoppel enunciated by this Court in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436 (1970). Even if the two were mutually exclusive crimes, see n. 6, supra, the taking of a guilty plea is not the same as an adjudication on the merits after full trial, such as took place in Ashe v. Swenson. Moreover, in a case such as this, where the State has made no effort to prosecute the charges seriatim, the considerations of double jeopardy protection implicit in the application of collateral estoppel are inapplicable.
We see no need to address the manner in which the trial court should resolve the question of the existing guilty pleas if the ease proceeds to trial, the issue appearing to involve construction of state law and the jurisdiction of Ohio courts to fashion appropriate relief. See Ohio Rule Crim. Proc. 32.1 (1982); cf. Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323, 332 (1970). | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to indentify whether the Court declared unconstitutional an act of Congress; a state or territorial statute, regulation, or constitutional provision; or a municipal or other local ordinance. Note that the Court need not necessarily specify in many words that a law has been declared unconstitutional. Where federal law pre-empts a state statute or a local ordinance, unconstitutionality does not result unless the Court's opinion so states. Nor are administrative regulations the subject of declarations of unconstitutionality unless the declaration also applies to the law on which it is based. Also excluded are federal or state court-made rules. | Did the Court declare unconstitutional an act of Congress; a state or territorial statute, regulation, or constitutional provision; or a municipal or other local ordinance? | [
"No declaration of unconstitutionality",
"Act of Congress declared unconstitutional",
"State or territorial law, regulation, or constitutional provision unconstitutional",
"Municipal or other local ordinance unconstitutional"
] | [
0
] | sc |
ZAVADA v. UNITED STATES.
No. 65,
Misc.
Decided January 20, 1958.
Petitioner pro se.
Solicitor General Rankin, Warren Olney, III, then Assistant Attorney General, and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the' Northern District of Ohio for a hearing. Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275; Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U. S. 342.
Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Whittaker dissent. | 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. | What is the ideological direction of the decision? | [
"Conservative",
"Liberal",
"Unspecifiable"
] | [
1
] | sc |
Subsets and Splits