Datasets:

ricdomolm

/

lawma-all-tasks

like 0

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court. The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA or Act), 21 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., regulates the inspection, handling, and slaughter of livestock for human consumption. We consider here whether the FMIA expressly preempts a California law dictating what slaughterhouses must do with pigs that cannot walk, known in the trade as nonambulatory pigs. We hold that the FMIA forecloses the challenged applications of the state statute. I A The FMIA regulates a broad range of activities at slaughterhouses to ensure both the safety of meat and the humane handling of animals. First enacted in 1906, after Upton Sinclair’s muckraking novel The Jungle sparked an uproar over conditions in the meatpacking industry, the Act establishes “an elaborate system of inspecting]” live animals and carcasses in order “to prevent the shipment of impure, unwholesome, and unfit meat and meat-food products.” Pittsburgh Melting Co. v. Totten, 248 U. S. 1, 4-5 (1918). And since amended in 1978, see 92 Stat. 1069, the FMIA requires all slaughterhouses to comply with the standards for humane handling and slaughter of animals set out in the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 (HMSA), 72 Stat. 862, 7 U. S. C. § 1901 et seq., which originally applied only to slaughterhouses selling meat to the Federal Government. The Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has responsibility for administering the FMIA to promote its dual goals of safe meat and humane slaughter. Over the years, the FSIS has issued extensive regulations to govern the inspection of animals and meat, as well as other aspects of slaughterhouses’ operations and facilities. See 9 CFR §300.1 et seq. (2011). The FSIS employs about 9,000 inspectors, veterinarians, and investigators to implement its inspection regime and enforce its humane-handling requirements. See Hearings on 2012 Appropriations before the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the House Committee on Appropriations, 112th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. IB, p. 921 (2011). In fiscal year 2010, those personnel examined about 147 million head of livestock and carried out more than 126,000 “humane handling verification procedures.” Id., at 942-943. The FSIS’s inspection procedure begins with an “ante-mortem” examination of each animal brought to a slaughterhouse. See 9 CFR §309.1. If the inspector finds no evidence of disease or injury, he approves the animal for slaughter. If, at the other end of the spectrum, the inspector sees that an animal is dead or dying, comatose, suffering from a high fever, or afflicted with a serious disease or condition, he designates the animal as “U. S. Condemned.” See §309.3; §311.1 et seq. (listing diseases requiring condemnation). A condemned animal (if not already dead) must be killed apart from the slaughtering facilities where food is produced, and no part of its carcass may be sold for human consumption. See § 309.13(a); 21 U. S. C. § 610(c). The inspector also has an intermediate option: If he determines that an animal has a less severe condition — or merely suspects the animal of having a disease meriting condemnation — he classifies the animal as “U. S. Suspect.” See 9 CFR § 309.2. That category includes all nonambulatory animals not found to require condemnation. See § 309.2(b). Suspect livestock must be “set apart,” specially monitored, and (if not reclassified because of a change in condition) “slaughtered separately from other livestock.” §309.2(n). Following slaughter, an inspector decides at a “post-mortem” examination which parts, if any, of the suspect animal’s carcass may be processed into food for humans. See 9 CFR pts. 310, 311. The regulations implementing the FMIA additionally prescribe methods for handling animals humanely at all stages of the slaughtering process. Those rules apply from the moment a truck carrying livestock “enters, or is in line to enter,” a slaughterhouse’s premises. Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock, FSIS Directive 6900.2, ch. II(I) (rev. Aug. 15, 2011). And they include specific provisions for the humane treatment of animals that cannot walk. See 9 CFR § 313.2(d). Under the regulations, slaughterhouse employees may not drag conscious, nonambulatory animals, see § 313.2(d)(2), and may move them only with “equipment suitable for such purposes,” § 313.2(d)(3). Similarly, employees must place nonambulatory animals, as well as other sick and disabled livestock, in covered pens sufficient to protect the animals from “adverse climatic conditions.” See § 313.2(d)(1); § 313.1(c). The FMIA contains an express preemption provision, at issue here, addressing state laws on these and similar matters. That provision’s first sentence reads: “Requirements within the scope of this [Act] with respect to premises, facilities and operations of any establishment at which inspection is provided under . . . this [Act], which are in addition to, or different than those made under this [Act] may not be imposed by any State.” 21 U.S. C. § 678. B In 2008, the Humane Society of the United States released an undercover video showing workers at a slaughterhouse in California dragging, kicking, and electroshocking sick and disabled cows in an effort to move them. The video led the Federal Government to institute the largest beef recall in U. S. history in order to prevent consumption of meat from diseased animals. Of greater relevance here, the video also prompted the California legislature to strengthen a preexisting statute governing the treatment of nonambulatory animals and to apply that statute to slaughterhouses regulated under the FMIA. See National Meat Assn. v. Brown, 599 F. 3d 1093, 1096 (CA9 2010). As amended, the California law — § 599f of the state penal code — provides in relevant part: “(a) No slaughterhouse, stockyard, auction, market agency, or dealer shall buy, sell, or receive a nonambula-tory animal. “(b) No slaughterhouse shall process, butcher, or sell meat or products of nonambulatory animals for human consumption. “(c) No slaughterhouse shall hold a nonambulatory animal without taking immediate action to humanely euthanize the animal.” Cal. Penal Code Ann. §599f (West 2010). The maximum penalty for violating any of these prohibitions is one year in jail and a $20,000 fine. See § 599f(h). Petitioner National Meat Association (NMA) is a trade association representing meatpackers and processors, including operators of swine slaughterhouses. It sued to enjoin the enforcement of § 599f against those slaughterhouses, principally on the ground that the FMIA preempts application of the state law. The District Court granted the NMA’s motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning that § 599f is expressly preempted because it requires swine “to be handled in a manner other than that prescribed by the FMIA” and its regulations. App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction. According to that court, the FMIA does not expressly preempt § 599f because the state law regulates only “the kind of animal that may be slaughtered,” and not the inspection or slaughtering process itself. 599 F. 3d, at 1098. We granted certiorari, 564 U. S. 1036 (2011), and now reverse. II The FMIA’s preemption clause sweeps widely — and in so doing, blocks the applications of § 599f challenged here. The clause prevents a State from imposing any additional or different — even if non-conflicting — requirements that fall within the scope of the Act and concern a slaughterhouse’s facilities or operations. And at every turn §599f imposes additional or different requirements on swine slaughterhouses: It compels them to deal with nonambulatory pigs on their premises in ways that the federal Act and regulations do not. In essence, California’s statute substitutes a new regulatory scheme for the one the FSIS uses. Where under federal law a slaughterhouse may take one course of action in handling a nonambulatory pig, under state law the slaughterhouse must take another. Consider first what the two statutes tell a slaughterhouse to do when (as not infrequently occurs) a pig becomes injured and thus nonambulatory sometime after delivery to the slaughterhouse. Section 599f(c) prohibits the slaughterhouse from “holding]” such an animal “without taking immediate action to humanely euthanize” it. And §599f(b) provides that no part of the animal’s carcass may be “pro-cessfedj” or “butcher[edj” to make food. By contrast, under the FMIA and its regulations, a slaughterhouse may hold (without euthanizing) any nonambulatory pig that has not been condemned. See supra, at 457. And the slaughterhouse may process or butcher such an animal’s meat for human consumption, subject to an FSIS official’s approval at a post-mortem inspection. See ibid. The State’s proscriptions thus exceed the FMIA’s. To be sure, nothing in the federal Act requires what the state law forbids (or forbids what the state law requires); California is right to note that “[t]he FMIA does not mandate that ‘U. S. Suspect’ [nonambulatory] animals ... be placed into the human food production process.” Brief for State Respondents Bl. But that is irrelevant, because the FMIA’s preemption clause covers not just conflicting but also different or additional state requirements. It therefore precludes California’s effort in §§599f(b) and (c) to impose new rules, beyond any the FSIS has chosen to adopt, on what a slaughterhouse must do with a pig that becomes nonambulatory during the production process. Similarly, consider how the state and federal laws address what a slaughterhouse should do when a pig is nonambula-tory at the time of delivery, usually because of harsh transportation conditions. Section 599f(a) of the California law bars a slaughterhouse from “receiv[ing]” or “buy[ing]” such a pig, thus obligating the slaughterhouse to refuse delivery of the animal. But that directive, too, deviates from any imposed by federal law. A regulation issued under the FMIA specifically authorizes slaughterhouses to buy disabled or diseased animals (including nonambulatory swine), by exempting them from a general prohibition on such purchases. See 9 CFR § 325.20(c). And other regulations contemplate that slaughterhouses will in fact take, rather than refuse, receipt of nonambulatory swine. Recall that the FMIA’s regulations provide for the inspection of all pigs at delivery, see supra, at 456 — in the case of nonambulatory pigs, often right on the truck, see Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock, FSIS Directive 6900.2, ch. II(I). They further instruct slaughterhouses to kill and dispose of any nonambulatory pigs labeled “condemned,” and to slaughter separately those marked “suspect.” See supra, at 456-457. In short, federal law establishes rules for handling and slaughtering nonambulatory pigs brought to a slaughterhouse, rather than ordering them returned to sender. So § 599f(a) and the FMIA require different things of a slaughterhouse confronted with a delivery truck containing nonam-bulatory swine. The former says “do not receive or buy them”; the latter does not. The Humane Society counters that at least § 599f(a)’s ban on buying nonambulatory animals escapes preemption because that provision applies no matter when or where a purchase takes place. The argument proceeds in three steps: (1) Section 599f(a)’s ban covers purchases of nonambulatory pigs made prior to delivery, away from the slaughterhouse itself (say, at a farm or auction); (2) the State may regulate such offsite purchases because they do not involve a slaughterhouse’s “premises, facilities and operations,” which is a condition of preemption under the FMIA; and (3) no different result should obtain just because a slaughterhouse structures its swine purchases to occur at delivery, on its own property. See Brief for Non-State Respondents 43-45. But this argument fails on two grounds. First, its preliminary steps have no foundation in the record. Until a stray comment at oral argument, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 50, neither the State nor the Humane Society had disputed the NMA’s assertion that slaughterhouses buy pigs at delivery (or still later, upon successful ante-mortem inspection). See Brief for Petitioner 46, n. 18; Brief for Non-State Respondents 44; Brief for State Respondents 16, n. 5. Nor had the parties presented evidence that a significant number of pigs become nonambulatory before shipment, when any offsite purchases would occur. The record therefore does not disclose whether § 599f(a)’s ban on purchase ever applies beyond the slaughterhouse gate, much less how an application of that kind would affect a slaughterhouse’s operations. And because that is so, we have no basis for deciding whether the FMIA would preempt it. Second, even assuming that a State could regulate offsite purchases, the concluding step of the Humane Society’s argument would not follow. The FMIA’s preemption clause expressly focuses on “premises, facilities and operations” — at bottom, the slaughtering and processing of animals at a given location. So the distinction between a slaughterhouse’s site-based activities and its more far-flung commercial dealings is not, as the Humane Society contends, an anomaly that courts should strain to avoid. It is instead a fundamental feature of the FMIA’s preemption clause. For that reason, the Humane Society’s stronger argument concerns California’s effort to regulate the last stage of a slaughterhouse’s business — the ban in § 599f(b) on “selling] meat or products of nonambulatory animals for human consumption.” The Government acknowledges that the FMIA’s preemption clause does not usually foreclose “state regulation of the commercial sales activities of slaughterhouses.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17. And the Humane Society asserts, in line with that general rule, that § 599f(b)’s ban on sales does not regulate a slaughterhouse’s “operations” because it kicks in only after they have ended: Once meat from a slaughtered pig has passed a post-mortem inspection, the Act “is not concerned with whether or how it is ever actually sold.” Brief for Non-State Respondents 45. At most, the Humane Society claims, §599f(b)’s ban on sales offers an “incentiv[e]” to a slaughterhouse to take nonambulatory pigs out of the meat production process. Id., at 46. And California may so “motivate[]” an operational choice without running afoul of the FMIA’s preemption provision. Ibid, (quoting Bates v. Dow Agro-sciences LLC, 544 U. S. 431, 443 (2005)). But this argument mistakes how the prohibition on sales operates within § 599f as a whole. The sales ban is a criminal proscription calculated to help implement and enforce each of the section’s other regulations — its prohibition of receipt and purchase, its bar on butchering and processing, and its mandate of immediate euthanasia. The idea — and the inevitable effect — of the provision is to make sure that slaughterhouses remove nonambulatory pigs from the production process (or keep them out of the process from the beginning) by criminalizing the sale of their meat. That, we think, is something more than an “ineentiv[e]” or “motivat[or]”; the sales ban instead functions as a command to slaughterhouses to structure their operations in the exact way the remainder of §599f mandates. And indeed, if the sales ban were to avoid the FMIA’s preemption clause, 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 FMIA’s preemption provision. Cf Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dish, 541 U. S. 246, 255 (2004) (stating that it “would make no sense” to allow state regulations to escape preemption because they addressed the purchase, rather than manufacture, of a federally regulated product). Like the rest of §599f, the sales ban regulates how slaughterhouses must deal with nonambula-tory pigs on their premises. The FMIA therefore preempts it for all the same reasons. III California’s and the Humane Society’s broadest argument against preemption maintains that all of §599f’s challenged provisions fall outside the “scope” of the FMIA because they exclude a class of animals from the slaughtering process. See 21 U. S. C. § 678 (preempting certain requirements “within the scope of this [Act]”). According to this view, the Act (and the FSIS’s authority under it) extends only to “animals that are going to be turned into meat,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 28 — or to use another phrase, animals that will “be slaughtered ... for purposes of human food production,” Brief for State Respondents 19 (emphasis deleted). Section 599f avoids the scope of the Act, respondents claim, by altogether removing nonambulatory pigs from the slaughtering process. The Ninth Circuit accepted this argument, analogizing § 599f to state laws upheld in two other Circuits banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption. 599 F. 3d, at 1098 (discussing Cavel Int’l, Inc. v. Madigan, 500 F. 3d 551 (CA7 2007), and Empacadora de Carnes de Fres-nillo, S. A. de C. V. v. Curry, 476 F. 3d 326 (CA5 2007)). According to the Court of Appeals, “states are free to decide which animals may be turned into meat.” 599 F. 3d, at 1098, 1099. We think not. The FMIA’s scope includes not only “animals that are going to be turned into meat,” but animals on a slaughterhouse’s premises that will never suffer that fate. The Act’s implementing regulations themselves exclude many classes of animals from the slaughtering process. Swine with hog cholera, for example, are disqualified, see 9 CFR § 309.5(a); so too are swine and other livestock “affected with anthrax,” § 309.7(a). Indeed, the federal regulations prohibit the slaughter of any nonambulatory cattle for human consumption. See § 309.3(e). As these examples demonstrate, one vital function of the Act and its regulations is to ensure that some kinds of livestock delivered to a slaughterhouse’s gates will not be turned into meat. Under federal law, nonambulatory pigs are not among those ex-eluded animals. But that is to say only that § 599f’s requirements differ from those of the FMIA — not that §599f’s requirements fall outside the FMIA’s scope. Nor are respondents right to suggest that §599f’s exclusion avoids the FMIA’s scope because it is designed to ensure the humane treatment of pigs, rather than the safety of meat. See, e. g., Brief for State Respondents 29; Brief for Non-State Respondents 39-40. That view misunderstands the authority — and indeed responsibility — that the FMIA gives to federal officials. Since 1978, when Congress incorporated the HMSA’s standards, the FMIA has required slaughterhouses to follow prescribed methods of humane handling, so as to minimize animals’ pain and suffering. See 21 U. S. C. §§ 603(b), 610(b); supra, at 456-458. A violation of those standards is a crime, see § 676, and the Secretary of Agriculture can suspend inspections at — and thus effectively shut down — a slaughterhouse that disobeys them, see §§ 603(b), 610(c). To implement the Act’s humane-handling provisions, the FSIS has issued detailed regulations, see 9 CFR pt. 313, including some specifically addressing animals that cannot walk, see §§ 313.2(d), 313.1(c). Those rules, as earlier noted, apply throughout the time an animal is on a slaughterhouse’s premises, from the moment a delivery truck pulls up to the gate. See supra, at 456-458. So the FMIA addresses not just food safety, but humane treatment as well. Even California conceded at oral argument that the FSIS could issue regulations under the FMIA, similar to § 599f, mandating the euthanasia of nonambulatory swine. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 46-47. If that is so — and it is, because of the FSIS’s authority over humane-handling methods — then §599f’s requirements must fall within the FMIA’s scope. The Circuit decisions upholding state bans on slaughtering horses, on which the Ninth Circuit relied, do not demand any different conclusion. We express no view on those decisions, except to say that the laws sustained there differ from § 599f in a significant respect. A ban on butchering horses for human consumption works at a remove from the sites and activities that the FMIA most directly governs. When such a ban is in effect, no horses will be delivered to, inspected at, or handled by a slaughterhouse, because no horses will be ordered for purchase in the first instance. But § 599f does not and cannot work in that way. As earlier noted, many nonambulatory pigs become disabled either in transit to or after arrival at a slaughterhouse. See supra, at 460-463, and nn. 5-6. So even with § 599f in effect, a swine slaughterhouse will encounter nonambulatory pigs. In that circumstance, § 599f tells the slaughterhouse what to do with those animals. Unlike a horse slaughtering ban, the statute thus reaches into the slaughterhouse’s facilities and affects its daily activities. And in so doing, the California law runs smack into the FMIA’s regulations. So whatever might be said of other bans on slaughter, § 599f imposes requirements within— and indeed at the very heart of — the FMIA’s scope. H-t <1 The FMIA regulates slaughterhouses’ handling and treatment of nonambulatory pigs from the moment of their delivery through the end of the meat production process. California’s §599f endeavors to regulate the same thing, at the same time, in the same place — except by imposing different requirements. The FMIA expressly preempts such a state law. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. The FMIA applies to all slaughterhouses producing meat for interstate and foreign commerce. See 21 U. S. C. §§ 601(h), 603(a). The FMIA also regulates slaughterhouses serving an exclusively intrastate market in any State that does not administer an inspection system with “requirements at least equal to those” of the Act. § 661(c)(1). Because California has chosen not to adopt such an inspection program, the FMIA governs all slaughterhouses in the State (except for any limited to “custom slaughtering for personal, household, guest, and employee uses,” § 623(a)). The FSIS’s regulations define “non-ambulatory disabled livestock” as “livestock that cannot rise from a recumbent position or that cannot walk, including, but not limited to, those with broken appendages, severed tendons or ligaments, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column, or metabolic conditions.” § 309.2(b). The preemption provision also includes a saving clause, which states that the Act “shall not preclude any State ... from making requirement^] or taking other action, consistent with this [Act], with respect to any other matters regulated under this [Act].” 21 U. S. C. §678; see n. 10, infra. The Humane Society intervened to defend §599f in the District Court. See Motion To Intervene in No. 08-1963 (ED Cal.), Record, Doc. 46. The organization continues as a respondent in this Court. The percentage of pigs becoming nonambulatory after delivery varies by slaughterhouse from 0.1 percent to over 1 percent. See McGlone, Fatigued Pigs: The Final Link, Pork Magazine 14 (Mar. 2006). About 100 million pigs are slaughtered each year in the United States, see Dept, of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Livestock Slaughter IS (Jan. 2011), so those percentages work out to between 100,000 and 1,000,000 pigs. According to one estimate, almost one-half of 1 percent of the pigs slaughtered annually in the United States become nonambulatory during the trip from farm to slaughterhouse. See National Pork Board, Transport Quality Assurance Handbook 25 (Version 4, 2008) (updated 2010). About half that many die during transport. See ibid. Section 599f(a) also bans “sell[ing]” nonambulatory animals. But because slaughterhouses (unlike other entities referenced in the provision) do not typically sell live animals, that prohibition is not at issue in this case. The statute’s distinct ban on selling meat from nonambulatory animals that have been slaughtered is discussed infra, at 463-464. California’s brief sometimes casts its argument in terms of the “operations” language of the FMIA’s preemption clause (although the State appeared to abandon this phrasing at oral argument). In this version of the claim, California contends that the “operations” of a slaughterhouse are only those “of federal concern,” and that excluding a class of animals from the slaughtering process does not impinge on such operations. Brief for State Respondents 20, n. 9; see also id., at 20-21. We see no real difference between saying that a categorical exclusion of animals does not implicate “‘operations’ of federal concern” and saying that it does not fall within the scope of the Act. Accordingly, our answer to both forms of the argument is the same. Indeed, the FSIS recently solicited comment on a rulemaking petition that would require all nonambulatory disabled livestock, including swine, to be humanely euthanized. See 76 Fed. Reg. 6572 (2011). The FSIS has taken no further action on that petition. We finally reject California’s argument, -see Brief for State Respondents 20, that our reading of the FMIA’s preemption provision renders its saving clause insignificant. That clause provides that States may regulate slaughterhouses as to “other matters,” not addressed in the express preemption clause, as long as those laws are “consistent with” the FMIA. 21 U. S. C. § 678. So, for example, the Government acknowledges that state laws of general application (workplace safety regulations, building codes, etc.) will usually apply to slaughterhouses. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 22. Moreover, because the FMIA’s express preemption provision prevents States from imposing only “additional]” or “different” requirements, § 678, States may exact civil or criminal penalties for animal cruelty or other conduct that also violates the FMIA. See § 678; cf. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U. S. 431, 447 (2005) (holding that a preemption clause barring state laws “ ‘in addition to or different’ ” from a federal Act does not interfere with an “equivalent” state provision (emphasis deleted)). Although the FMIA preempts much state law involving slaughterhouses, it thus leaves some room for the States to regulate. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

J

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner was convicted on four counts charging violation of federal narcotic laws. The only question which brings the case here is whether it was lawful, without a warrant of any kind, to arrest petitioner and to search her living quarters. Taking the Government’s version of disputed events, decision would rest on these facts: At about 7:30 p. m. Detective Lieutenant Belland, an officer of the Seattle police force narcotic detail, received information from a confidential informer, who was also a known narcotic user, that unknown persons were smoking opium in the Europe Hotel. The informer was taken back to the hotel to interview the manager, but he returned at once saying he could smell burning opium in the hallway. Belland communicated with federal narcotic agents and between 8:30 and 9 o’clock went back to the hotel with four such agents. All were experienced in narcotic work and recognized at once a strong odor of burning opium which to them was distinctive and unmistakable. The odor led to Room 1. The officers did not know who was occupying that room. They knocked and a voice inside asked who was there. “Lieutenant Bel-land,” was the reply. There was a slight delay, some “shuffling or noise” in the room and then the defendant opened the door. The officer said, “I want to talk to you a little bit.” She then, as he describes it, “stepped back acquiescently and admitted us.” He said, “I want to talk to you about this opium smell in the room here.” She denied that there was such a smell. Then he said, “I want you to consider yourself under arrest because we are going to search the room.” The search turned up incriminating opium and smoking apparatus, the latter being warm, apparently from recent use. This evidence the District Court refused to suppress before trial and admitted over defendant’s objection at the trial. Conviction resulted and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The defendant challenged the search of her home as a violation of the rights secured to her, in common with others, by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Government defends the search as legally justifiable, more particularly as incident to what it urges was a lawful arrest of the person. I. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Entry to defendant’s living quarters, which was the beginning of the search, was demanded under color of office. It was granted in submission to authority rather than as an understanding and intentional waiver of a constitutional right. Cf. Amos v. United States, 255 U. S. 313. At the time entry was demanded the officers were possessed of evidence which a magistrate might have found to be probable cause for issuing a search warrant. We cannot sustain defendant’s contention, erroneously made, on the strength of Taylor v. United States, 286 U. S. 1, that odors cannot be evidence sufficient to constitute probable grounds for any search. That decision held only that odors alone do not authorize a search without warrant. If the presence of odors is testified to before a magistrate and he finds the affiant qualified to know the odor, and it is one sufficiently distinctive to identify a forbidden substance, this Court has never held such a basis insufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant. Indeed it might very well be found to be evidence of most persuasive character. The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate’s disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people’s homes secure only in the discretion of police officers. Crime, even in the privacy of one’s own quarters, is, of course, of grave concern to society, and the law allows such crime to be reached on proper showing. The right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is also a grave concern, not only to the individual but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government enforcement agent. There are exceptional circumstances in which, on balancing the need for effective law enforcement against the right of privacy, it may be contended that a magistrate’s warrant for search may be dispensed with. But this is not such a case. No reason is offered for not obtaining a search warrant except the inconvenience to the officers and some slight delay necessary to prepare papers and present the evidence to a magistrate. These are never very convincing reasons and, in these circumstances, certainly are not enough to by-pass the constitutional requirement. No suspect was fleeing or likely to take flight. The search was of permanent premises, not of a movable vehicle. No evidence or contraband was threatened with removal or destruction, except perhaps the fumes which we suppose in time would disappear. But they were not capable at any time of being reduced to possession for presentation to court. The evidence of their existence before the search was adequate and the testimony of the officers to that effect would not perish from the delay of getting a warrant. If the officers in this case were excused from the constitutional duty of presenting their evidence to a magistrate, it is difficult to think of a case in which it should be required. II. The Government contends, however, that this search without warrant must be held valid because incident to an arrest. This alleged ground of validity requires examination of the facts to determine whether the arrest itself was lawful. Since it was without warrant, it could be valid only if for a crime committed in the presence of the arresting officer or for a felony of which he had reasonable cause to believe defendant guilty. The Government, in effect, concedes that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest petitioner until he had entered her room and found her to be the sole occupant. It points out specifically, referring to the time just before entry, “For at that time the agents did not know whether there was one or several persons in the room. It was reasonable to believe that the room might have been an opium smoking den.” And it says, “. . . that when the agents were admitted into the room and found only petitioner present they had a reasonable basis for believing that she had been smoking opium and thus illicitly possessed the narcotic.” Thus the Government quite properly stakes the right to arrest, not on the informer’s tip and the smell the officers recognized before entry, but on the knowledge that she was alone in the room, gained only after, and wholly by reason of, their entry of her home. It was therefore their observations inside of her quarters, after they had obtained admission under color of their police authority, on which they made the arrest. Thus the Government is obliged to justify the arrest by the search and at the same time to justify the search by the arrest. This will not do. An officer gaining access to private living quarters under color of his office and of the law which he personifies must then have some valid basis in law for the intrusion. Any other rule would undermine “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” and would obliterate one of the most fundamental distinctions between our form of government, where officers are under the law, and the police-state where they are the law. Reversed. The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Burton dissent. Two counts charged violation of § 2553 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U. S. C. § 2553 (a)) and two counts charged violation of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act as amended (21 U. S. C. §174). 162 F. 2d 562. In United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452, 464, this Court said: . . the informed and deliberate determinations of magistrates empowered to issue warrants as to what searches and seizures are permissible under the Constitution are to be preferred over the hurried action of officers and others who may happen to make arrests. Security against unlawful searches is more likely to be attained by resort to search warrants than by reliance upon the caution and sagacity of petty officers while acting under the excitement that attends the capture of persons accused of crime. . . .” “Belief, however well founded, that an article sought is concealed in a dwelling house furnishes no justification for a search of that place without a warrant. And such searches are held unlawful notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause.” Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 33. This is the Washington law. State v. Symes, 20 Wash. 484, 55 P. 626; State v. Lindsey, 192 Wash. 356, 73 P. 2d 738; State v. Krantz, 24 Wash. 2d 350, 164 P. 2d 453; State v. Robbins, 25 Wash. 2d 110, 169 P. 2d 246. State law determines the validity of arrests without warrant. United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581. The Government brief states that the question presented is “Whether there was probable cause for the arrest of petitioner for possessing opium prepared for smoking and the search of her room in a hotel incident thereto for the contraband opium, where experienced narcotic agents unmistakably detected and traced the pungent, identifiable odor of burning opium emanating from her room and knew, before they arrested her, that she was the only person in. the room.” The Government also suggests that “In a sense, the arrest was made in ‘hot pursuit.’ . . .” However, we find no element of “hot pursuit” in the arrest of one who was not in flight, was completely surrounded by agents before she knew of their presence, who claims without denial that she was in bed at the time, and who made no attempt to escape. Nor would these facts seem to meet the requirements of the Washington “Uniform Law on Fresh Pursuit.” Session Laws 1943, ch. 261. In Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 303, 304, this Court said: “It would not be possible to add to the emphasis with which the framers of our Constitution and this court (in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, in Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, and in Silver-thorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385) have declared the importance to political liberty and to the welfare of our country of the due observance of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by these two [Fourth and Fifth] Amendments. The effect of the decisions cited is: .that such rights are declared to be indispensable to the ‘full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty and private property’; that they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty; and that the guaranty of them is as important and as imperative as are the guaranties of the other fundamental rights of the individual citizen, — the right, to trial by jury, to the writ of habeas corpus and to due process of law. It has been repeatedly decided that these Amendments should receive a liberal construction, so as to prevent stealthy encroachment upon or ‘gradual depreciation’ of the rights secured by them, by imperceptible practice of courts or by well-intentioned but mistakenly over-zealous executive officers.” Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. A California jury convicted respondent Steven Frank Jackson of numerous sexual offenses stemming from his attack on a 72-year-old woman who lived in his apartment complex. Jackson raised a Batson claim, asserting that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to exclude black prospective jurors on the basis of their race. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986). Two of three black jurors had been struck; the third served on the jury. App. to Pet. for Cert. 49-50. Jackson’s counsel did not object when the prosecutor struck the first of the black jurors, Juror S. Counsel later explained that he did not make a “motion at that time” because he thought the excusa! of Juror S “was a close call.” After the prosecutor sought to dismiss the second juror, Juror J, Jackson’s counsel made the Batson motion challenging both strikes. Record in No. 2:07-cv-00555-RJB (ED Cal.), Doe. 29, Lodged Doc. No. 7, pp. 76-77 (hereinafter Document 7). The prosecutor offered a race-neutral explanation for striking each juror: Juror S had stated that from the ages of 16 to 30 years old, he was frequently stopped by California police officers because — in his view — of his race and age. As the prosecutor put it, “Whether or not he still harbors any animosity is not something I wanted to roll the dice with.” Id., at 78; Record in No. 2:07-cv-00555-RJB (ED Cal), Doc. 29, Lodged Doc. No. 10, pp. 57-58, 98-100 (hereinafter Document 10). The prosecutor stated that he struck Juror J because she had a master’s degree in social work, and had interned at the county jail, “probably in the psych unit as a sociologist of some sort.” The prosecutor explained that he dismissed her “based on her educational background,” stating that he does not “like to keep social workers.” Document 7, at 78-79; Document 10, at 188-189; App. to Pet. for Cert. 49. Jackson’s counsel expressly disagreed only with the prosecutor’s explanation for the strike of Juror J, see id., at 22-23, 47, arguing that removing her on the basis of her educational background was “ ‘itself invidious discrimination.’ ” The prosecutor responded that he was not aware that social workers were a “protected class.” As for Juror S, Jackson’s counsel explained that he “let [Juror S] slide” because he anticipated the prosecutor’s response and, in any event, he “only need[ed] one to establish the grounds for” a Batson motion. After listening to each side’s arguments, the trial court denied Jackson’s motion. Document 7, at 78-80. Jackson renewed his Batson claim on direct appeal, arguing that a comparative juror analysis revealed that the prosecutor’s explanations were pretextual. With respect to Juror S, Jackson argued that a nonblack juror — Juror 8— also had negative experiences with law enforcement but remained on the jury. App. to Pet. for Cert. 47-48. Juror 8 stated during jury selection that he had been stopped while driving in Illinois several years earlier as part of what he believed to be a “scam” by Illinois police targeting drivers with California license plates. Juror 8 also complained that he had been disappointed by the failure of law enforcement officers to investigate the burglary of his car. Document 10, at 26-27, 56-57, 95-97. With respect to Juror J, Jackson claimed that the prosecutor asked follow-up questions of several white jurors when he was concerned about their educational backgrounds, but struck Juror J without asking her any questions about her degree in social work. App. to Pet. for Cert. 49. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s denial of the Batson motion and affirmed Jackson’s convictions. The appellate court explained that “[t]he trial court’s ruling on this issue is reviewed for substantial evidence,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 43 (internal quotation marks omitted), which the California courts have characterized as equivalent to the “clear error” standard employed by federal courts, see, e. g., People v. Alvarez, 14 Cal. 4th 155, 196, 926 P. 2d 365, 389 (1996). With respect to whether the prosecutor’s stated reasons were pretextual, the court explained that it “give[s] great deference to the trial court’s ability to distinguish bona fide reasons from sham excuses.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 43. After comparing Juror S to Juror 8, the court concluded that “Juror 8’s negative experience out of state and the car burglary is not comparable to [Juror S’s] 14 years of perceived harassment by law enforcement based in part on race.” Id., at 48. As for Juror J, the court recognized that the prosecutor’s dismissal was based on her social services background — “a proper race-neutral reason” — and that this explained his different treatment of jurors with “backgrounds in law, bio-chemistry or environmental engineering.” Id., at 49. The court also noted that the “prosecutor focused on [Juror J’s] internship experience” at the county jail. Ibid. After the California Supreme Court denied Jackson’s petition for review, Jackson sought federal habeas relief. The Federal District Court properly recognized that review of Jackson’s claim was governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). That law provides, in pertinent part, that federal habeas relief may not be granted unless the state-court adjudication “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(2). After considering the State Court of Appeal decision and reviewing the record evidence, the District Court held that the California Court of Appeal’s findings were not unreasonable. App. to Pet. for Cert. 24. The District Court therefore denied Jackson’s petition. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in a three-paragraph unpublished memorandum opinion. 389 Fed. Appx. 640 (2010). In so doing, the court did not discuss any specific facts or mention the reasoning of the other three courts that had rejected Jackson’s claim. Instead, after setting forth the basic background legal principles in the first two paragraphs, the Court of Appeals offered a one-sentence conclusory explanation for its decision: “The prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral bases for peremptorily striking the two African-American jurors were not sufficient to counter the evidence of purposeful discrimination in light of the fact that two out of three prospective African-American jurors were stricken, and the record reflected different treatment of comparably situated jurors.” Id., at 641. That decision is as inexplicable as it is unexplained. It is reversed. The Batson issue before us turns largely on an “evaluation of credibility.” 476 U. S., at 98, n. 21. The trial court’s determination is entitled to “great deference,” ibid., and “must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous,” Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U. S. 472, 477 (2008). That is the standard on direct review. On federal habeas review, AEDPA “imposes a highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings” and “demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Renico v. Lett, 559 U. S. 766, 773 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here the trial court credited the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations, and the California Court of Appeal carefully reviewed the record at some length in upholding the trial court’s findings. The state appellate court’s decision was plainly not unreasonable. There was simply no basis for the Ninth Circuit to reach the opposite conclusion, particularly in such a dismissive manner. The petition for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. 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. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court Subsection (a) of 8 U. S. C. § 1326 defines a crime. It forbids an alien who once was deported to return to the United States without special permission, and it authorizes a prison term of up to, but no more than, two years. Subsection (b)(2) of the same section authorizes a prison term of up to, but no more than, 20 years for “any alien described” in subsection (a), if the initial “deportation was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony.” The question before us is whether this latter provision defines a separate crime or simply authorizes an enhanced penalty. If the former, i. e., if it constitutes a separate crime, then the Government must write an indictment that mentions the additional element, namely, a prior aggravated felony conviction. If the latter, i. e., if the provision simply authorizes an enhanced sentence when an offender also has an earlier conviction, then the indictment need not mention that fact, for the fact of an earlier conviction is not an element of the present crime. We conclude that the subsection is a penalty provision, which simply authorizes a court to increase the sentence for a recidivist. It does not define a separate crime. Consequently, neither the statute nor the Constitution requires the Government to charge the factor that it mentions, an earlier conviction, in the indictment. I In September 1995, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging petitioner, Hugo Almendarez-Torres, with having been “found in the United States... after being deported” without the “permission and consent of the Attorney General” in “violation of... Section 1326.” App. 3. In December 1995, Almendarez-Torres entered a plea of guilty. At a hearing, before the District Court accepted his plea, Almendarez-Torres admitted that he had been deported, that he had later unlawfully returned to the United States, and that the earlier deportation had taken place “pursuant to” three earlier “convictions” for aggravated felonies. Id., at 10-14. In March 1996, the District Court held a sentencing hearing. Almendarez-Torres pointed out that an indictment must set forth all the elements of a crime. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 117 (1974). He added that his indictment had not mentioned his earlier aggravated felony convictions. And he argued that, consequently, the court could not sentence him to more than two years imprisonment, the maximum authorized for an offender without an earlier conviction. The District Court rejected this argument. It found applicable a Sentencing Guideline range of 77 to 96 months, see United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §2L1.2; ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table) (Nov. 1995) (USSG), and it imposed a sentence of 85 months’ imprisonment. App. 17. On appeal the Fifth Circuit also rejected petitioner’s argument. 113 F. 3d 515 (1996). Like seven other Circuits, it has held that subsection (b)(2) is a penalty provision that simply permits a sentencing judge to impose a higher sentence when the unlawfully returning alien also has a record of prior convictions. United States v. Vasquez-Olvera, 999 F. 2d 943, 945-947 (CA5 1993); see United States v. Forbes, 16 F. 3d 1294, 1297-1300 (CA1 1994); United States v. DeLeon-Rodriguez, 70 F. 3d 764, 765-767 (CA3 1995); United States v. Crawford, 18 F. 3d 1173, 1176-1178 (CA4 1994); United States v. Munoz-Cerna, 47 F. 3d 207, 210, n. 6 (CA7 1995); United States v. Haggerty, 85 F. 3d 403, 404-405 (CA8 1996); United States v. Valdez, 103 F. 3d 95, 97-98 (CA10 1996); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F. 3d 557, 559-560 (CA11 1995); cf. United States v. Cole, 32 F. 3d 16, 18-19 (CA2 1994) (reaching same result with respect to 8 U. S. C. § 1326(b)(1)). The Ninth Circuit, however, has reached the opposite conclusion. United States v. Gonzalez-Medina, 976 F. 2d 570, 572 (1992) (subsection (b)(2) constitutes separate crime). We granted certiorari to resolve this difference among the Circuits. II An indictment must set forth each element of the crime that it charges. Hamling v. United States, supra, at 117. But it need not set forth factors relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime. Within limits, see McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79, 84-91 (1986), the question of which factors are which is normally a matter for Congress. See Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600, 604 (1994) (definition of a criminal offense entrusted to the legislature, “ ‘particularly in the case of federal crimes, which are solely creatures of statute’ ”) (quoting Liparota v. United States, 471 U. S. 419, 424 (1985)). We therefore look to the statute before us and ask what Congress intended. Did it intend the factor that the statute mentions, the prior aggravated felony conviction, to help define a separate crime? Or did it intend the presence of an earlier conviction as a sentencing factor, a factor that a sentencing court might use to increase punishment? In answering this question, we look to the statute’s language, structure, subject matter, context, and history — factors that typically help courts determine a statute’s objectives and thereby illuminate its text. See, e. g., United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482, 490-492 (1997); Garrett v. United States, 471 U. S. 773, 779 (1985). The directly relevant portions of the statute as it existed at the time of petitioner’s conviction included subsection (a), which Congress had enacted in 1952, and subsection (b), which Congress added in 1988. See 8 U. S. C. § 1326 (1952 ed.), as enacted June 27, 1952, §276, 66 Stat. 229; 8 U. S. C. §1326 (1988 ed.) (reflecting amendments made by § 7345(a), 102 Stat. 4471). We print those portions of text below: “§1326. Reentry of deported alien; criminal penalties for reentry of certain deported aliens. “(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, any alien who— “(1) has been... deported..., and thereafter “(2) enters..., or is at any time found in, the United States [without the Attorney General’s consent or the legal equivalent], “shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. “(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, in the case of any alien described in such subsection— “(1) whose deportation was subsequent to a conviction for commission of [certain misdemeanors], or a felony (other than an aggravated felony), such alien shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; or “(2) whose deportation was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony, such alien shall be fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” 8 U. S. C. § 1326. A Although the statute’s language forces a close reading of the text, as well as consideration of other interpretive circumstances, see Wells, supra, we believe that the answer to the question presented — whether Congress intended subsection (b)(2) to set forth a sentencing factor or a separate crime — is reasonably clear. At the outset, we note that the relevant statutory subject matter is recidivism. That subject matter — prior commission of a serious crime — is as typical a sentencing factor as one might imagine. See, e.g., USSG §§4A1.1, 4A1.2 (Nov. 1997) (requiring sentencing judge to consider an offender’s prior record in every case); 28 U. S. C. § 994(h) (instructing Commission to write Guidelines that increase sentences dramatically for serious recidivists); 18 U. S. C. § 924(e) (Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984) (imposing significantly higher sentence for felon-in-possession violation by serious recidivists); 21 U. S. C. §§841(b)(1)(A)-(D) (same for drug distribution); United States Sentencing Commission, 1996 Source-book of Federal Sentencing Statistics 35, 49 (for year ending Sept. 30, 1996, 20.3% of all federal cases involved offenders with substantial criminal records (criminal history categories IV-VI); 44.2% of drug eases involved offenders with prior convictions). Perhaps reflecting this fact, the lower courts have almost uniformly interpreted statutes (that authorize higher sentences for recidivists) as setting forth sentencing factors, not as creating new crimes (at least where the conduct, in the absence of the recidivism, is independently unlawful). E. g., United States v. McGatha, 891 F. 2d 1520, 1525 (CA11 1990) (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)); United States v. Arango-Montoya, 61 F. 3d 1331, 1339 (CA7 1995) (21 U. S. C. § 841(b)); United States v. Jackson, 824 F. 2d 21, 25, and n. 6 (CADC 1987). And we have found no statute that clearly makes recidivism an offense element in such circumstances. But cf. 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1) (prior felony conviction an element but conduct not otherwise unlawful). With recidivism as the subject matter in mind, we turn to the statute’s language. In essence, subsection (a) says that “any alien” once “deported,” who.reappears in the United States'without appropriate permission, shall be fined or “imprisoned not more than 2 years.” Subsection (b) says that “any alien described in” subsection (a), “whose deportation was subsequent to a conviction” for a minor, or for a major, crime, may be subject to a much longer prison term. The statute includes the words “subject to subsection (b)” at the beginning of subsection (a), and the words “Notwithstanding subsection (a)” at the beginning of subsection (b). If Congress intended subsection (b) to set forth substantive crimes, in respect to which subsection (a) would define a lesser included offense, see Blockburger v. United States, 284 U. S. 299, 304 (1932), what are those words doing there? The dissent believes that the words mean that the substantive crime defined by “subsection (a) is inapplicable to an alien covered by subsection (b),” post, at 264, hence the words represent an effort to say that a defendant cannot be punished for both substantive crimes. But that is not what the words say. Nor has Congress ever (to our knowledge) used these or similar words anywhere else in the federal criminal code for such a purpose. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 113 (aggravated and simple assault); §§ 1111, 1112 (murder and manslaughter); § 2113 (bank robbery and incidental crimes); §§ 2241, 2242 (aggravated and simple sexual abuse). And this should come as no surprise since, for at least 60 years, the federal courts have presumed that Congress does not intend for a defendant to be cumulatively punished for two crimes where one crime is a lesser included offense of the other. See Whalen v. United States, 445 U. S. 684, 691-693 (1980); Blockburger, supra. If, however, Congress intended subsection (b) to provide additional penalties, the mystery disappears. The words “subject to subsection (b)” and “Notwithstanding subsection (a)” then are neither obscure nor pointless. They say, without obscurity, that the crime set forth in subsection (a), which both defines a crime and sets forth a penalty, is “subject to” subsection (b)’s different penalties (where the alien is also a felon or aggravated felon). And (b)’s higher maximum penalties may apply to an offender who violates (a) “notwithstanding” the fact that (a) sets forth a lesser penalty for one who has committed the same substantive crime. Nor is it pointless to specify that (b)’s punishments, not (a)’s punishment, apply whenever an offender commits (a)’s offense in a manner set forth by (b). Moreover, the circumstances of subsection (b)’s adoption support this reading of the statutory text. We have examined the language of the statute in 1988, when Congress added the provision here at issue. That original language does not help petitioner. In 1988, the statute read as follows (with the 1988 amendment underscored): “§ 1326. Reentry of deported alien; criminal penalties for reentry of certain deported aliens. “(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, any alien who— “(1) has been... deported..., and thereafter “(2) enters..., or is at any time found in, the United States [without the Attorney General’s consent or the legal equivalent], “shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment of not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. “(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, in the case of any alien described in such subsection— “(1) whose deportation was subsequent to a conviction for commission of a felony (other than an aggravated felony), such alien shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; or “(2) whose deportation was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony, such alien shall be fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 15years, or both” 8 U. S. C. § 1326 (1988 ed.) (emphasis added). Thus, at the time of the amendment, the operative language of subsection (a)’s ordinary reentering-alien provision said that a reentering alien “shall he guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment of not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than $1,000.” The 1988 amendment, subsection (b), by way of contrast, referred only to punishment — an increased punishment for the felon, or the aggravated felon, whom subsection (a) has “described.” Although one could read the language, “any alien described in [subsection (a)],” standing alone, as importing subsection (a)’s elements into new offenses defined in subsection (b), that reading seems both unusual and awkward when taken in context, for the reasons just given. Linguistically speaking, it seems more likely that Congress simply meant to “describe” an alien who, in the words of the 1988 statute, was “guilty of a felony” defined in subsection (a) and “convict[ed] thereof.” As the dissent points out, post, at 265, Congress later struck from subsection (a) the words just quoted, and added in their place the words, “shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than two years.” See Immigration Act of 1990 (1990 Act), § 543(b)(8), 104 Stat. 5059. But this amendment was one of a series in the 1990 Act that uniformly updated and simplified the phrasing of various, disparate civil and criminal penalty provisions in the Immigration and Naturalization Act. See, e. g., 1990 Act, § 548(b)(1) (amending 8 U. S. C. § 1282(c)); § 543(b)(2)(C) (amending 8 U. S. C. § 1325); § 543(b)(4) (amending 8 U. S. C. § 1327); § 543(b)(5) (amending 8 U. S. C. § 1328). The section of the Act that contained the amendment is titled “Increase in Fine Levels; Authority of the INS to Collect Fines,” and the relevant subsection, simply “Criminal Fine Levels.” 1990 Act, § 543(b), 104 Stat. 5057, 5059. Although the 1990 amendment did have the effect of making the penalty provision in subsection (a) (which had remained unchanged since 1952) parallel with its counterparts in later enacted subsection (b), neither the amendment’s language, nor the legislative history of the 1990 Act, suggests that in this housekeeping measure, Congress intended to change, or to clarify, the fundamental relationship between the two subsections. We also note that “the title of a statute and the heading of a section” are “tools available for the resolution of a doubt” about the meaning of a statute. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 331 U. S. 519, 528-529 (1947); see also INS v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U. S. 183, 189 (1991). The title of the 1988 amendment is “Criminal penalties for reentry of certain deported aliens.” § 7345, 102 Stat. 4471 (emphasis added). A title that contains the word “penalties” more often, but certainly not always, see post, at 266-267, signals a provision that deals with penalties for a substantive crime. In this instance the amendment’s title does not reflect careless, or mistaken, drafting, for the title is reinforced by a legislative history that speaks about, and only about, the creation of new penalties. See S. 973, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987), 133 Cong. Rec. 8771 (1987) (original bill titled, “A bill to provide for additional criminal penalties for deported aliens who reenter the United States, and for other purposes”); 134 Cong. Rec. 27429 (1988) (section-by-seetion analysis referring to Senate bill as increasing penalties for unlawful reentry); id., at 27445 (remarks of Sen. D’Amato) (law would “increas [e] current penalties for illegal reentry after deportation”); id., at 27462 (remarks of Sen. Chiles) (law would “impose stiff penalties” against deported aliens previously convicted of drug offenses); 133 Cong. Rec. 28840-28841 (1987) (remarks of Rep. Smith) (corresponding House bill creates three-tier penalty structure). The history, to our knowledge, contains no language at all that indicates Congress intended to create a new substantive crime. Finally, the contrary interpretation — a substantive criminal offense — risks unfairness. If subsection (b)(2) sets forth a separate crime, the Government would be required to prove to the jury that the defendant was previously deported “subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony.” As this Court has long recognized, the introduction of evidence of a defendant’s prior crimes risks significant prejudice. See, e.g., Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 560 (1967) (evidence of prior crimes “is generally recognized to have potentiality for prejudice”). Even if a defendant’s stipulation were to keep the name and details of the previous offense from the jury, see Old Chief v. United States, 519 U. S. 172, 178-179 (1997), jurors would still learn, from the indictment, the judge, or the prosecutor, that the defendant had committed an aggravated felony. And, as we said last Term, “there can be no question that evidence of the... nature of the prior offense,” here, that it was “aggravated” or serious, “carries a risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant.” Id., at 185 (emphasis added). Like several lower courts, we do not believe, other things being equal, that Congress would have wanted to create this kind of unfairness in respect to facts that are almost never contested. See, e. g., United States v. Forbes, 16 F. 3d, at 1298-1300; United States v. Rumney, 867 F. 2d 714, 718-719 (CA1 1989); United States v. Brewer, 853 F. 2d 1319, 1324-1325 (CA6 1988) (en banc); United States v. Jackson, 824 F. 2d, at 25-26; Government of Virgin Islands v. Castillo, 550 F. 2d 850, 854 (CA3 1977). In sum, we believe that Congress intended to set forth a sentencing factor in subsection (b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. B We must also consider several additional arguments that have been or might be made for a contrary interpretation of the statute. First, one might try to derive a congressional intent to establish a separate crime from the magnitude of the increase in the maximum authorized sentence. The magnitude of the change that Congress made in 1988, however, proves little. That change — from a 2-year maximum to 5- and 15-year máximums — is well within the range set forth in other statutes that the lower courts have generally interpreted as providing for sentencing enhancements. Compare 8 U. S. C. § 1326 (1988 ed.) with 21 U. S. C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and (D) (distributing less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, maximum 5 years; distributing 100 or more kilograms of marijuana, 5 to 40 years), §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and (C) (distributing less than 100 grams of heroin, maximum 20 years; distributing 1 kilogram or more of heroin, maximum of life imprisonment), § 841(b)(1)(B) (distributing 500 grams or more of cocaine, 5 to 40 years; same, with prior drug felony conviction, 10 years to life); §962 (doubling maximum term for second and subsequent violations of drug importation laws); 18 U. S. C. § 844 (using or carrying explosive device during commission of felony, maximum 10 years; subsequent offense, maximum 20 years); § 2241(c) (sexual abuse of children, maximum life; second offense, mandatory life); § 2320(a) (trafficking in counterfeit goods, maximum 10 years; subsequent offense, maximum 20 years). Congress later amended the statute, increasing the máximums to 10 and to 20 years, respectively. "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, §§ 130001(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2), 108 Stat. 2023. But nothing suggests that, in doing so, Congress intended to transform that statute’s basic nature. And the later limits are close to the range suggested by other statutes regardless. Second, petitioner and the dissent point, in part, to statutory language that did not exist when petitioner was convicted in 1995. Petitioner, for example, points out that in 1996, Congress added two new subsections, (b)(3) and (b)(4), which, petitioner says, created new substantive crimes. See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, § 401(c), 110 Stat. 1267 (adding subsection (b)(3)); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), § 305(b), 110 Stat. 3009-606 to 3009-607 (adding subsection (b)(4)). Both petitioner and the dissent also refer to another 1996 statutory provision in which Congress used the word “offense” to refer to the subsection now before us. See IIRIRA, §834,110 Stat. 3009-635. These later enacted laws, however, are beside the point. They do not declare the meaning of earlier law. Cf. Federal Housing Administration v. Darlington, Inc., 358 U. S. 84, 90 (1958). They do not seek to clarify an earlier enacted general term. Cf. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 380-381 (1969). They do not depend for their effectiveness upon clarification, or a change in the meaning of an earlier statute. Cf. Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 444 U. S. 572, 595-596 (1980). They do not reflect any direct focus by Congress upon the meaning of the earlier enacted provisions. Cf. ibid.; Darlington, supra, at 86. Consequently, we do not find in them any forward looking legislative mandate, guidance, or direct suggestion about how courts should interpret the earlier provisions. Regardless, it is not obvious that the two new subsections to which petitioner points create new crimes (a matter on which we express no view) nor, in adding them, did Congress do more than leave the legal question here at issue where it found it. The fact that Congress used a technical, crime-suggesting word — “offense”—eight years later in a different, and minor, statutory provision proves nothing — not least because it is more than offset by different words in the same later statute that suggest with greater force the exact opposite, namely, the precise interpretation of the relation of subsection (b) to subsection (a) that we adopt. See IIRIRA, § 321(e), 110 Stat. 3009-628 (stating that a new definition of “aggravated felony” applies “under" subsection (b) “only to violations” of subsection (a)). Finally, petitioner and the dissent argue that the doctrine of “constitutional doubt” requires us to interpret subsection (b)(2) as setting forth a separate crime. As Justice Holmes said long ago: “A statute must be construed, if fairly possible, so as to avoid not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional but also grave doubts upon that score.” United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 401 (1916) (citing United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 408 (1909)); see also Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 348 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). “This canon is followed out of inspect for Congress, which we assume legislates in the light of constitutional limitations.” Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 191 (1991); see also FTC v. American Tobacco Co., 264 U. S. 298, 305-307 (1924). The doctrine seeks in part to minimize disagreement between the branches by preserving congressional enactments that might otherwise founder on constitutional objections. It is not designed to aggravate that friction by creating (through the power of precedent) statutes foreign to those Congress intended, simply through fear of a constitutional difficulty that, upon analysis, will evaporate. Thus, those who invoke the doctrine must believe that the alternative is a serious likelihood that the statute will be held unconstitutional. Only then will the doctrine serve its basic democratic function of maintaining a set of statutes that reflect, rather than distort, the policy choices that elected representatives have made. For similar reasons, the statute must be genuinely susceptible to two constructions after, and not before, its complexities are unraveled. Only then is the statutory construction that avoids the constitutional question a “fair” one. Unlike the dissent, we do not believe these conditions are met in the present case. The statutory language is somewhat complex. But after considering the matter in context, we believe the interpretative circumstances point significantly in one direction. More important, even if we were to assume that petitioner’s construction of the statute is “fairly possible,” Jin Fuey Moy, supra, at 401, the constitutional questions he raises, while requiring discussion, simply do not lead us to doubt gravely that Congress may authorize courts to impose longer sentences upon recidivists who commit a particular crime. The fact that we, unlike the dissent, do not gravely doubt the statute’s constitutionality in this respect is a crucial point. That is because the “constitutional doubt” doctrine does not apply mechanically whenever there arises a significant constitutional question the answer to which is not obvious. And precedent makes clear that the Court need not apply (for it has not always applied) the doctrine in circumstances similar to those here — where a constitutional question, while lacking an obvious answer, does not lead a majority gravely to doubt that the statute is constitutional. See, e. g., Rust, 500 U. S., at 190-191 (declining to apply doctrine although petitioner’s constitutional claims not “without some force”); id., at 204-207 (Blackmun, J., dissenting); United States v. Monsanto, 491 U. S. 600, 611 (1989); id., at 636 (Blackmun, J., dissenting); United States v. Locke, 471 U. S. 84, 95 (1985); id., at 120 (Stevens, J., dissenting). HH HH b-H Invoking several of the Court’s precedents, petitioner claims that the Constitution requires Congress to treat recidivism as an element of the offense — irrespective of Congress’ contrary intent. Moreover, petitioner says, that requirement carries with it three subsidiary requirements that the Constitution mandates in respect to ordinary, legislatively intended, elements of crimes. The indictment must state the “element.” See, e.g., Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S., at 117. The Government must prove that “element” to a jury. See, e. g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149 (1968). And the Government must prove the “element” beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197, 210 (1977). We cannot find sufficient support, however, in our precedents or elsewhere, for petitioner’s claim. This Court has explicitly held that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause “protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 364 (1970). But Winship, the ease in which the Court set forth this proposition of constitutional law, does not decide this case. It said that the Constitution entitles juveniles, like adults, to the benefit of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in respect to the elements of the crime. It did not consider whether, or when, the Constitution requires the Government to treat a particular fact as an element, i. e., as a “fact necessary to constitute the crime,” even where the crime-defining statute does not do so. Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975), provides petitioner with stronger support. The Court there struck down a state homicide statute under which the State presumed that all homicides were committed with “malice,” punishable by life imprisonment, unless the defendant proved that he had acted in the heat of passion. Id., at 688. The Court wrote that “if Winship were limited to those facts that constitute a crime as defined by state law, a State could undermine many of the interests that decision sought to protect” just by redefining “the elements that constituted] different crimes, characterising them as factors that bear solely on the extent of punishment.” Id., at 698. It simultaneously held that the prosecution must establish “beyond a reasonable doubt” the nonexistence of “heat of passion” — the fact that, under the State’s statutory scheme, distinguished a homicide punishable by a life sentence from a homicide punishable by a maximum of 20 years. Id., at 704. Read literally, this language, we concede, suggests that Congress cannot permit judges to increase a sentence in light of recidivism, or any other factor, not set forth in an indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court’s later case, Patterson v. New York, supra, however, makes absolutely clear that such a reading of Mullaney is wrong. The Court, in Patterson, pointed out that the State in Mullaney made the critical fact — the absence of “heat of passion” — not simply a potential sentencing factor, but also a critical part of the definition of “malice aforethought,” which was itself in turn “part of” the statute’s definition of “homicide,” the crime in question. Patterson, 432 U. S., at 215-216. (The Maine Supreme Court, in defining the crime, had said that “malice” was “presumed” unless “rebutted” by the defendant’s showing of “heat of passion.” Id., at 216.) The Court found this circumstance extremely important. It said that Mullaney had considered (and held “impermissible”) the shifting of a burden of proof “with respect to a fact which the State deems so important that it must be either proved or presumed.” 432 U. S., at 215 (emphasis added). And the Court then held that similar burden shifting was permissible with respect to New York’s homicide-related sentencing factor “extreme emotional disturbance.” Id., at 205-206. That factor was not a factor that the state statute had deemed “so important” in relation to the crime that it must be either “proved or presumed.” Id., at 205-206, 215. The upshot is that Mullaney's language, if read literally, suggests that the Constitution requires that most, if not all, sentencing factors be treated as elements. But Patterson suggests the exact opposite, namely, that the Constitution requires scarcely any sentencing factors to be treated in that way. The cases, taken together, cannot significantly help petitioner, for the statute here involves a sentencing factor— the prior commission of an aggravated felony — that is neither “presumed” to be present, nor need be “proved” to be present, in order to prove the commission of the relevant crime. See 8 U. S. C. § 1326(a) (defining offense elements). Indeed, as we have said, it involves one of the most frequently found factors that affects sentencing — recidivism. Nor does Specht v. Patterson, 386 U. S. 605 (1967), which petitioner cites, provide significant additional Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. There are other questions, but the principal issue presented for decision is whether a private cause of action for damages against corporate directors is to be implied in favor of a corporate stockholder under 18 U. S. C. § 610, a criminal statute prohibiting corporations from making “a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors... are to be voted for.” We con-elude that implication of such a.federal cause of action is not suggested by the legislative context of § 610 or required to accomplish Congress’ purposes in enacting the statute. We therefore have no occasion to address the questions whether § 610, properly construed, proscribes the expenditures alleged in this case, or whether the statute is unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment or of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. I In August and September 1972, an advertisement with the caption “I say let's keep the campaign honest. Mobilize ‘truth squads' ” appeared in various national publications, including Time, Newsweek, and U. S. News and World Report, and in 19 local newspapers in communities where Bethlehem Steel Corp. (Bethlehem), a Delaware corporation, has plants. Reprints of the advertisement, which consisted mainly of quotations from a speech by petitioner Stewart S. Cort, chairman of the board of directors of Bethlehem, were included with the September 11, 1972, quarterly dividend checks mailed to the stockholders of the corporation. The main text of the advertisement appealed to the electorate to “encourage responsible, honest, and truthful campaigning.” It alleged that vigilance was needed because “careless rhetoric and accusations... are being thrown around these days — their main target being the business community.” In italics, under a picture of Mr. Cort, the advertisement quoted “the following statement made by a political candidate: ‘The time has come for a tax system that says to big business — you must pay your fair share.' ” It then printed Mr. Cort’s rejoinder to this in his speech, including his opinion that to say “large corporations [are] not carrying their fair share of the tax burden” is “baloney.” The advertisement concluded with an offer to send, on request, copies of Mr. Cort’s entire speech and a folder “telling how to go about activating Truth Squads.” These publications could be obtained free from the Public Affairs Department of Bethlehem. It is stipulated that the entire costs of the advertisements and various mailings were paid from Bethlehem’s general corporate funds. App. A29-A30; 350 F. Supp. 227, 229 (ED Pa. 1972). Respondent owns 50 shares of Bethlehem stock and was qualified to vote in the 1972 Presidential election. He filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 28, 1972, on behalf of himself and, derivatively, on behalf of Bethlehem. The complaint specified two separate and distinct bases for jurisdiction and relief. Count I alleged jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 and sought to state a private claim for relief under 18 ^U. S. C. § 610, which, as mentioned, in terms provides only for a criminal penalty. Count II invoked pendent jurisdiction for a claim under Delaware law, alleging that the corporate campaign expenditures were “ultra vires, unlawful and [a] willful, wanton and gross breach of [defendants’] duty owed to [Bethlehem].” Immediate injunctive relief against further corporate expenditures in connection with the 1972 Presidential election or any future campaign was sought, as well as compensatory and punitive damages in favor of the corporation. The District Court denied a preliminary injunction on October 25, 1972. 350 F. Supp. 227. While the denial was supported on three grounds, it was upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit only on the narrow ground that irreparable harm was not shown. 471 F. 2d 811 (1973). After the affirmance on appeal, petitioners sought an order requiring respondent to post security for expenses as required by Pennsylvania law. The court declined to order such security with regard to the federal cause of action alleged in Count I, but did order respondent to post $35,000 before proceeding with the pendent claim under Count II. Rather than post security, respondent filed an amended complaint, which dropped Count II, the separate state cause of action, from the case. The District Court then granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment without opinion. The Court of Appeals reversed, 496 F. 2d 416 (1974). The Court of Appeals held that, since the amended complaint sought damages for the corporation for violation of § 610, the controversy was not moot, although the election which occasioned it was past. The Court of Appeals held further that “a private cause of action, whether brought by a citizen to secure injunctive relief or by a stockholder to secure injunctive or derivative damage relief [is] proper to remedy violation of § 610.” Id., at 424. We granted certiorari, 419 U. S. 992 (1974). We reverse. II We consider first the holding of the Court of Appeals that respondent has “a private cause of action... [as] a citizen [or as a stockholder] to secure injunctive relief.” The 1972 Presidential election is history, and respondent as citizen or stockholder seeks injunctive relief only as to future elections. In that circumstance, a statute enacted after the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-443, 88 Stat. 1263 (Amendments) (amending the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 86 Stat. 3), requires reversal of the holding of the Court of Appeals. In terms, § 610 is only a criminal statute, providing a fine or imprisonment for its violation. At the time this suit was filed, there was no statutory provision for civil enforcement of § 610, whether by private parties or by a Government agency. But the Amendments created a Federal Election Commission, 2 U. S. C. § 437c (a)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV); established an administrative procedure for processing complaints of alleged violations of § 610 after January 1, 1975, 2 U. S. G. § 437g (1970 ed., Supp. IV), and §410, note following 2 U. S. C. §431 (1970 ed., Supp. IV); and provided that “[a]ny person who believes a violation... [of § 610] has occurred may file a complaint with the Commission.” 2 U. S. C. § 437g (a) (1) (A) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). The Commission must either investigate the complaint or refer the complaint to the Attorney General, 2 U. S. C. §§ 437g (a) (2) (A) and (B) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). If the Commission chooses to investigate the complaint, and after investigation determines that “any person has engaged or is about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation” of § 610, the Commission may request the Attorney General to “institute a civil action for relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or any other appropriate order....” 2U. S. C. § 437g (a)(7) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). And 2 U. S. C. § 437c (b) (1970 ed.', Supp. IV), expressly vests the Commission with “primary jurisdiction” over any claimed violation of § 610 within its purview. Consequently, a complainant seeking as citizen or stockholder to enjoin alleged violations of § 610 in future elections must henceforth pursue the statutory remedy of a complaint to the Commission, and invoke its authority to request the Attorney General to seek the injunctive relief. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1438, p. 94 (1974). Thus, the Amendments constitute an intervening law that relegates to the Commission’s cognizance respondent’s complaint as citizen or stockholder for injunctive relief against any alleged violations of § 610 in future elections. In that circumstance, the holding of the Court of Appeals must be reversed, for our duty is to decide this case according to the law existing at the time of our decision. The governing rule was announced by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 110 (1801): “It is in the general true that the province of an appellate court is only to enquire whether a judgment when rendered was erroneous or not. But if subsequent to the judgment and before the decision of the appellate court, a law intervenes and positively changes the rule which governs, the law must be obeyed, or its obligation denied. If the law be constitutional... I know of no court which can contest its obligation.... In such a case the court must decide according to existing laws, and if it be necessary to set aside a judgment, rightful when rendered, but which cannot be affirmed but in violation of law, the judgment must be set aside.” We most recently reaffirmed the principle of Schooner Peggy in Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U. S. 696, 711 (1974), where we said: “We anchor our holding in this case on the principle that a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary.” There is no “statutory direction or legislative history to the. contrary” in or respecting the Amendments, nor is there any possible “manifest injustice” in requiring respondent to pursue with respect to alleged violations which have yet to occur the statutory remedy for injunctive relief created by the Amendments. Ill Our conclusion in Part II pretermits any occasion for addressing the question of respondent’s standing as a citizen and voter to maintain this action, for respondent seeks damages only derivatively as stockholder. Therefore, we turn next to the holding of the Court of Appeals that “a private cause of action... by a stockholder to secure... derivative damage relief [is] proper to remedy violation of § 610.” We hold that such relief is not available with regard to a 1972 violation under § 610 itself, but rather is available, if at all, under Delaware law governing corporations. In determining whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one, several factors are relevant. First, is the plaintiff “one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted,” Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33, 39 (1916) (emphasis supplied) — that is, does the statute create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff? Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? See, e. g., National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers, 414 U. S. 453, 458, 460 (1974) (Amtrak). Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? See, e. g., Amtrak, supra; Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour, 421 U. S. 412, 423 (1975); Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U. S. 134 (1964). And finally, is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law? See Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U. S. 647, 652 (1963); cf. J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 434 (1964); Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 394-395 (1971); id., at 400 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). The dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals and petitioners here suggest that where a statute provides a penal remedy alone, it cannot be regarded as creating a right in any particular class of people. “Every criminal statute is designed to protect some individual, public, or social interest.... To find an implied civil cause of action for the plaintiff in this case is to find an implied civil right of action for every individual, social, or public interest which might be invaded by violation of any criminal statute. To do this is to conclude that Congress intended to enact a civil code companion to the criminal code.” 496 F. 2d, at 428-429 (Aldisert, J., dissenting). Cf. Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., 355 U. S. 373, 377 (1958). Clearly, provision of a criminal penalty does not necessarily preclude implication of a private cause of action for damages. Wyandotte Transportation Co. v. United States, 389 U. S. 191, 201-202 (1967); see also J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, supra; Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Rigsby, supra. However, in Wyandotte, Borak, and Rigsby, there was at least a statutory basis for inferring that a civil cause of action of some sort lay in favor of someone. Here, there was nothing more than a bare criminal statute, with absolutely no indication that civil enforcement of any kind was available to anyone. We need not, however, go so far as to say that in this circumstance a bare criminal statute can never be deemed sufficiently protective of some special group so as to give rise to a private cause of action by a member of that group. For the intent to protect corporate shareholders particularly was at best a subsidiary purpose of § 610, and the other relevant factors all either are not helpful or militate against implying a private cause of action. First, § 610 is derived from the Act of January 26, 1907, which “seems to have been motivated by two considerations. First, the necessity for destroying the influence over elections which corporations exercised through financial contribution. Second, the feeling that corporate officials had no moral right to use corporate funds for contribution to political parties without the consent of the stockholders.” United States v. CIO, 335 U. S. 106, 113 (1948). See 40 Cong. Rec. 96 (1905) (Annual Message of President Theodore Roosevelt). Respondent bases his derivative action on the second purpose, claiming that the intent to protect stockholders from use of their invested funds for political purposes demonstrates that the statute set up a federal right in shareholders not to have corporate funds used for this purpose. However, the legislative history of the 1907 Act, recited at length in United States v. Auto Workers, 352 U. S. 567 (1957), demonstrates that the protection of ordinary stockholders was at best a secondary concern. Rather, the primary purpose of the 1907 Act, and of the 1925 Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 43 Stat. 1070, which re-enacted the 1907 provision with some changes as § 313 of that Act, see United States v. Auto Workers, supra, at 577, was to assure that federal elections are “ 'free from the power of money,' ” 352 U. S., at 574, to eliminate " 'the apparent hold on political parties which business interests... seek and sometimes obtain by reason of liberal campaign contributions.' ” Id., at 576, quoting 65 Cong. Rec. 9507 (1924) (remarks of Sen. Robinson). See also 352 U. S., at 571-577. Thus, the legislation was primarily concerned with corporations as a source of aggregated wealth and therefore of possible corrupting influence, and not directly with the internal relations between the corporations and their stockholders. In contrast, in those situations in which we have inferred a federal private cause of action not expressly provided, there has generally been a clearly articulated federal right in the plaintiff, e. g., Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, supra, or a pervasive legislative scheme governing the relationship between the plaintiff class and the defendant class in a particular regard, e. g., J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, supra. Second, there is no indication whatever in the legislative history of § 610 which suggests a congressional intention to vest in corporate shareholders a federal right to damages for violation of § 610. True, in situations in which it is clear that federal law has granted a class of persons certain rights, it is not necessary to show an intention to create a private cause of action, although an explicit purpose to deny such cause of action would be controlling. But where, as here, it is at least dubious whether Congress intended to vest in the plaintiff class rights broader than those provided by state regulation of corporations, the fact that there is no suggestion at all that § 610 may give rise to a suit for damages or, indeed, to any civil cause of action, reinforces the conclusion that the expectation, if any, was that the relationship between corporations and their stockholders would continue to be entrusted entirely to state law. Third, while “it is the duty of the courts to be alert to provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective the congressional purpose,” J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S., at 433, in this instance the remedy sought would not aid the primary congressional goal. Recovery of derivative damages by the corporation for violation of § 610 would not cure the influence which the use of corporate funds in the first instance may have had on a federal election. Rather, such a remedy would only permit directors in effect to “borrow” corporate funds for a time; the later compelled repayment might well not deter the initial violation, and would certainly not decrease the impact of the use of such funds upon an election already past. Fourth, and finally, for reasons already intimated, it is entirely appropriate in this instance to relegate respondent and others in his situation to whatever remedy is created by state law. In addition to the ultra vires action pressed here, see n. 6, supra, the use of corporate funds in violation of federal law may, under the law of some States, give rise to a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. See, e. g., Miller v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 507 F. 2d 759 (CA3 1974). Corporations are creatures of state law, and investors commit their funds to corporate directors on the understanding that, except where federal law expressly requires certain responsibilities of directors with respect to stockholders, state law will govern the internal affairs of the corporation. If, for example, state law permits corporations to use corporate funds as contributions in state elections, see Miller, supra, at 763 n. 4, shareholders are on notice that their funds may be so used and have no recourse under any federal statute. We are necessarily reluctant to imply a federal right to recover funds used in violation of a federal statute where the laws governing the corporation may put a shareholder on notice that there may be no such recovery. In Borak, supra, we said: “[If] the law of the State happened to attach no responsibility to the use of misleading proxy statements, the whole purpose of [§ 14 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934] might be frustrated.” 377 U. S., at 434-435. Here, committing respondent to state-provided remedies would have no such effect. In Borak, the statute involved was clearly an intrusion of federal law into the internal affairs of corporations; to the extent that state law differed or impeded suit, the congressional intent could be compromised in state-created causes of action. In this case, Congress was concerned, not with regulating corporations as such, but with dulling their impact upon federal elections. As we have seen, the existence or nonexistence of a derivative cause of action for damages would not aid or hinder this primary goal. Because injunctive relief is not presently available in light of the Amendments, and because implication of a federal right of damages on behalf of a corporation under § 610 would intrude into an area traditionally committed to state law without aiding the main purpose of § 610, we reverse. It is so ordered. Title 18 U. S. C. § 610 (1970 ed. and Supp. Ill) provided in part as follows when this suit was filed: “Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations or labor organizations. “It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, or for any corporation whatever, or any labor organization to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors or a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to Congress are to be voted for, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any of the foregoing offices, or for any candidate, political committee, or other person to accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this section. “Every corporation or labor organization which makes any contribution or expenditure in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $5,000; and every officer or director of any corporation, or officer of any labor organization, who consents to any contribution or expenditure by the corporation or labor organization, as the case may be, and any person who accepts or receives any contribution, in violation of this section, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. “As used in this section, the phrase 'contribution or expenditure’ shall include any direct or indirect payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, or any services, or anything of value (except a loan of money by a national or State bank made in accordance with the applicable banking laws and regulations and in the ordinary course of business) to any candidate, campaign committee, or political party or organization, in connection with any election to any of the offices referred to in this section; but shall not include communications by a corporation to its stockholders and their families or by a labor organization to its members and their families on any subject; nonpartisan registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns by a corporation aimed at its stockholders and their families, or by a labor organization aimed at its members and their families; the establishment, administration, and solicitation of contributions to a separate segregated fund to be utilized for political purposes by a corporation or labor organization: Provided, That it shall be unlawful for such a fund to make a contribution or expenditure by utilizing money or anything of value secured by physical force, job discrimination, financial reprisals, or the threat of force, job discrimination, or financial reprisal; or by dues, fees, or other monies required as a condition of membership in a labor organization or as a condition of employment, or by monies obtained in any commercial transaction.” Definitions of various terms in § 610 are included in 18 U. S. C. §591 (1970 ed., Supp. III). The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-443, 88 Stat. 1263, §§ 101 (e), 102, increased substantially the fines for violation of § 610 and changed many of the definitions in § 591 of the terms used in § 610. The speech was a general defense of "big business” and the current tax system. Although it named no political candidate or party, it was in large part devoted to refuting statements, which were quoted, by “a prominent presidential candidate.” The complaint in this case alleged that the “candidate” referred to was quite clearly the Democratic candidate for President at the time (George McGovern), App. A13. The speech concluded with the suggestion that listeners “[m]obilize ‘truth squads’” — organize to refute “false or deceptive” statements and “outrageous accusations.” The folder was entitled: “How you can help to keep the campaign honest.” It included suggestions for informing oneself about the election, using research tools, refuting “a statement you know to be wrong,” and organizing friends and neighbors to do the same. Unlike the speech and advertisement, the folder contained no quotations from any political candidate, nor any discussion of issues. First, the District Court held that the penal sanctions provided in § 610 are exclusive, and no private cause of action is to be implied. 360 F. Supp., at 231. Second, the District Court held that “the purpose of the advertisement was not to influence the election of a specific candidate,” and therefore that “the payment for the advertisement did not constitute an ‘expenditure’ within the meaning of... Section 610.” Id., at 231-232. Third, the court found that “[i]n failing to prove a likelihood of success on the merits, plaintiff has failed to prove that irreparable harm would result if an injunction is not granted.” Id., at 232. In affirming, the Court of Appeals observed that while the District Court’s opinion seemed to preclude respondent from any ultimate relief, the opinion addressed only a request for preliminary relief and therefore had to be considered only tentative, leaving respondent free to renew his contentions on final hearing. 471 F. 2d, at 812. Respondent seems to invite the Court, in effect, to reinstate Count II. We decline to do so. He argues, somewhat cryptically, that the order to post security “was a nullity” since “[a] court may not dismiss a theory of relief.” Brief for Respondent 11 and n. 2. But the District Court did not dismiss the pendent state-law claim; respondent deliberately dropped it from his amended complaint. Therefore, whatever the merits of the order for security as applied only to the pendent claim, see Sargent v. Genesco, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 1244 (MD Fla. 1972), cf. Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949), respondent has foreclosed himself from consideration of a state claim not now raised by his operative pleading. Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U. S. 647, 652 (1963). We do not think that the pendent state-law claim was preserved in these circumstances by the verbatim repetition in the amended complaint of a general allegation from the original complaint that petitioners’ conduct was “in violation of state and federal law.” Therefore, there is not properly before us respondent’s argument that the acts of a Delaware corporation violative of United States criminal statutes are ultra vires acts under Delaware corporation law, Del. Code Ann., Tit. 8, §101; 6 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations 335 (1968 ed.), and that his ultra vires cause of action therefore "arises under” federal law, that is, § 610, within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1331. He relies upon Smith v. Kansas City Title Co., 255 U. S. 180 (1921); see also Wheeldin v. Wheeler, supra, at 659-660 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Not only was Count II dropped from the case by respondent, and no argument addressed to it made by him in the District Court or the Court of Appeals, but he neither cross-petitioned nor raised the contention in his Opposition to the Petition for Certiorari. Moreover, this Court must necessarily depend upon the district courts and courts of appeals for initial determinations of questions of state law; indeed, our practice of deference to such determinations should generally render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect. Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U. S, 456, 462 (1967); Bagan v. Merchants Transfer Co., 337 U. S. 530, 534 (1949). Obviously, then, we should not undertake to decide such questions, inherent in respondent’s theory, in the first instance. In sum, in this case “we see no cause for deviating from our normal policy of not considering issues which have not been presented to the Court of Appeals and which are not properly presented for review here.” Neely v. Eby Constr. Co., 386 U. S. 317, 330 (1967); cf. Wiener v. United States, 357 U. S. 349, 351 n. (1958). A Federal Election Commission was included in the Senate-passed bill in 1971, but was eliminated in conference. See Berry & Goldman, Congress and Public Policy: A Study of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 10 Harv. J. Legis. 331, 343, 354 (1973); S. Conf. Rep. No. 92-580, pp. 34-35 (1971); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 92-752, pp. 34-35 (1971). The Commission in the Senate version was given no explicit authority with regard to violations of §610. See S. 382, §308 (b), as passed Aug. 5, 1971 (3 Leg. Hist, of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971). Other provisions of the Amendments which may have relevance to private parties’ complaints of violations of § 610 include 2 U. S. C. §437g(a)(9) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), providing for judicial review at the behest of “[a]ny party aggrieved” by any order granted in a civil action filed by the Attorney General, and 2 U. S. C. § 437h (a) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), permitting “any individual eligible to vote in any election for the office of President of the United States” to file “such actions... as may be appropriate to construe the constitutionality of... [§ 610].” The parties disagree upon whether this reference to “primary jurisdiction” suggests that a complainant, after filing a complaint with the Commission, may file a civil suit for injunctive relief if the Commission fails to cause one to be filed. They also dispute whether the exhaustion requirement applies to a suit for damages. Compare 120 Cong. Rec. 35134 (1974) (remarks of Mr. Hays) (suggesting that the statutory remedies are exclusive) with id., at 35132 (remarks of Mr. Brademas) (“individuals or organizations who may have complaints about possible violations [must] first exhaust their administrative remedies with the Commission...” (emphasis supplied)); see also H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1438, p. 94 (1974). However, these issues are not here relevant; it suffices for the purposes of this ease to hold that the statute requires that a private complainant desiring injunctive relief against alleged future violations of § 610 must at least exhaust his statutory remedy under the Amendments when and if such violations occur. We note that the question of the availability of a private cause of action by respondent for injunctive relief may not arise at all if the Attorney General seeks and obtains injunctive relief for any claimed violations by Bethlehem. Cf. Richardson v. Wright, 405 U. S. 208, 209 (1972). Although the considerations upon which we base our present decision have relevance to a similar determination under the Amendments, we imply no view whether the same result would obtain under the Amendments. See n. 9, supra, and n. 14, infra. In Wyandotte, it was conceded that the United States had a civil in rem action against the ship obstructing navigation under § 19 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and could retain the proceeds of the sale of the vessel and its cargo. 389 U. S., at 200 n. 12. The only question was whether it also had other judicial remedies for violation of § 15 of the Act, aside from the criminal penalties provided in § 16. In Borak, § 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 specifically granted jurisdiction to the district courts over civil actions to “enforce any liability or duty created by this title or the rules and regulations thereunder,” and there seemed to be no dispute over the fact that at least a private suit for declaratory relief was authorized; the question was whether a derivative suit for rescission and damages was also available. 377 U. S., at 340-431. Further it was clear that the Securities and Exchange Commission could sue to enjoin violations of § 14 (a) of the Act, the section involved in Borah. See § 21 of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78u. Finally, in Rigsby, the Court noted that the statutes involved included language pertinent only to a private right of action for damages, although such a right of action was not expressly provided, thus rendering “[t]he inference of a private right of action... irresistible.” 241 U. S., at 40. See also United States v. Republic Steel Corp., 362 U. S. 482, 491 (1960). The Act provided: “[It] shall be unlawful for any national bauk, or any corporation organized by authority of any laws of Congress, to make a money contribution in connection with any election to any political office. It shall also be unlawful for any corporation whatever to make a money contribution in connection with any election at which Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors or a Representative in Congress is to be voted for or any election by any State legislature of a United States Senator....” 34 Stat. 864. Section 610 was later expanded to include labor unions within its prohibition. The history of this expansion has been recounted before. United States v. CIO, 335 U. S. 106, 114-116 (1948); United States v. Auto Workers, 352 U. S. 567, 578-584 (1957); Pipefitters v. United States, 407 U. S. 385, 402-409 (1972). We note that Congress did show concern, in permanently 'expanding § 610 to unions, for protecting union members from use of their funds for political purposes. See United States v. CIO, supra, at 135, 142 (Rutledge, J., concurring). This difference in emphasis may reflect a recognition that, while a stockholder acquires his stock voluntarily and is free to dispose of it, union membership and the payment of union dues is often involuntary because of union security and checkoff provisions. Cf. Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740 (1961). It is therefore arguable that the federal interest in the relationship between members and their unions is much greater than the parallel interest in the relationship between stockholders and state-created corporations. In fact, the permanent expansion of § 610 to include labor unions was part of comprehensive labor legislation, the TaftHartley Act of 1947, while the 1907 Act dealt with corporations only with regard to their impact on federal elections. We intimate no view whether our conclusion that § 610 did not give rise directly to a cause of action Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

C

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Whittaker delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant, Rose Staub, was convicted in the Mayor’s Court of the City of Baxley, Georgia, of violation of a city ordinance and was sentenced to imprisonment for 30 days or to pay a fine of $300. The Superior Court of the county affirmed the judgment of conviction; the Court of Appeals of the State affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, 94 Ga. App. 18, 93 S. E. 2d 375; and the Supreme Court of the State denied an application for certiorari. The case comes here on appeal. The ordinance in question is set forth in the margin. Its violation, which is not denied, arose from the following undisputed facts shown at the trial: Appellant was a salaried employee of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union which was attempting to organize the employees of a manufacturing company located in the nearby town of Hazelhurst. A number of those employees lived in Baxley. On February 19,1954, appellant and one Mamie Merritt, also a salaried employee of the union, went to Baxley and, without applying for permits required under the ordinance, talked with several of the employees at their homes about joining the union. While in a restaurant in Baxley on that day they were sought out and questioned by the Chief of Police concerning their activities in Baxley, and appellant told him that they were “going around talking to some of the women to organize the factory workers . . . and hold [ing] meetings with them for that purpose.” Later that day a meeting was held at the home of one of the employees, attended by three other employees, at which, in the words of the hostess, appellant “just told us they wanted us to join the union, and said it would be a good thing for us to do . . . and went on to tell us how this union would help us.” Appellant told those present that the membership dues would be 64 cents per week but would not be payable until the employees were organized. No money was asked or received from the persons at the meeting, but they were invited “to get other girls . . . there to join the union” and blank membership cards were offered for that use. Appellant further explained that the immediate objective was to “have enough cards signed to petition for an election . . . with the Labor Board.” On the same day a summons was issued and served by the Chief of Police commanding appellant to appear before the Mayor’s Court three days later to answer “to the offense of Soliciting Members for an Organization without a Permit & License.” Before the trial, appellant moved to abate the action upon a number of grounds, among which were the contentions that the ordinance “shows on its face that it is repugnant to and violative of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States in that it places a condition precedent upon, and otherwise unlawfully restricts, the defendant’s freedom of speech as well as freedom of the press and freedom of lawful assembly” by requiring, as conditions precedent to the exercise of those rights, the issuance of a “license” which the Mayor and city council are authorized by the ordinance to grant or refuse in their discretion, and the payment of a “license fee” which is discriminatory and unreasonable in amount and constitutes a prohibitory flat tax upon the privilege of soliciting persons to join a labor union. These contentions were overruled by the Mayor’s Court and, after a continuance, the case was tried and appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated. The same contentions were made in the Superior Court where the city answered, denying “that the ordinance is invalid or void for any of the reasons stated” by appellant, and, after a hearing, that court affirmed the judgment of conviction. Those contentions were renewed in the Court of Appeals but that court declined "to consider them. It stated that “[t]he attack should have been made against specific sections of the ordinance and not against the ordinance as a whole”; that “[hjaving made no effort to secure a license, the defendant is in no position to claim that any section of the ordinance is invalid or unconstitutional” ; and that since it “appears that the attack was not made against any particular section of the ordinance as being void or unconstitutional, and that the defendant has made no effort to comply with any section of the ordinance ... it is not necessary to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence, the constitutionality of the ordinance, or any other phase of the case . . . .” The court then held that “[t]he trial court did not err in overruling the writ of certiorari” and affirmed the judgment of conviction. 94 Ga. App., at 24, 93 S. E. 2d, at 378-379. At the threshold, appellee urges that this appeal be dismissed because, it argues, the decision of the Court of Appeals was based upon state procedural grounds and thus rests upon an adequate nonfederal basis, and that we are therefore without jurisdiction to entertain it. Hence, the question is whether that basis was an adequate one in the circumstances of this case. “Whether a pleading sets up a sufficient right of action or defense, grounded on the Constitution or a law of the United States, is necessarily a question of federal law; and where a case coming from a state court presents that question, this Court must determine for itself the sufficiency of the allegations displaying the right or defense, and is not concluded by the view taken of them by the state court.” First National Bank v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 341, 346, and cases cited. See also Schuylkill Trust Co. v. Pennsylvania, 296 U. S. 113, 122-123, and Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 450. As Mr. Justice Holmes said in Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 24, “Whatever springes the State may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the State confers, the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Whether the constitutional rights asserted by the appellant were “. . . given due recognition by the [Court of Appeals] is a question as to which the [appellant is] entitled to invoke our judgment, and this [she has] done in the appropriate way. It therefore is within our province to inquire not only whether the right was denied in express terms, but also whether it was denied in substance and effect, as by putting forward non-federal grounds of decision that were without any fair or substantial support . . . [for] if non-federal grounds, plainly untenable, may be thus put forward successfully, our power to review easily may be avoided.” Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17, 22, and cases cited. The first of the nonfederal grounds relied on by appellee, and upon which the decision of the Court of Appeals rests, is that appellant lacked standing to attack the constitutionality of the ordinance because she made no attempt to secure a permit under it. This is not an adequate nonfederal ground of decision. The decisions of this Court have uniformly held that the failure to apply for a license under an ordinance which on its face violates the Constitution does not preclude review in this Court of a judgment of conviction under such an ordinance. Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553, 562; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 452. “The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of such an ordinance the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands.” Jones v. Opelika, 316 U. S. 584, 602, dissenting opinion, adopted per curiam on rehearing, 319 U. S. 103, 104. Appellee also contends that the holding of the Court of Appeals, that appellant’s failure to attack “specific sections” of the ordinance rendered it unnecessary, under Georgia procedure, “to pass upon . . . the constitutionality of the ordinance, or any other phase of the case . . .,” constitutes an adequate “non-federal ground” to preclude review in this Court. We think this contention is “without any fair or substantial support” (Ward v. Love County, supra) and therefore does not present an adequate nonfederal ground of decision in the circumstances of this case. The several sections of the ordinance are interdependent in their application to one in appellant’s position and constitute but one complete act for the licensing and taxing of her described activities. For that reason, no doubt, she challenged the constitutionality of the whole ordinance, and in her objections used language challenging the constitutional effect of all its sections. She did, thus, challenge all sections of the ordinance, though not by number. To require her, in these circumstances, to count off, one by one, the several sections of the ordinance would be to force resort to an arid ritual of meaningless form. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Georgia seems to have recognized the arbitrariness of such exaltation of form. Only four years ago that court recognized that an attack on such a statute was sufficient if “the [statute] so challenged was invalid in every part for some reason alleged.” Flynn v. State, 209 Ga. 519, 522, 74 S. E. 2d 461, 464 (1953). In enunciating that rule the court was following a long line of its own decisions. Atlantic Loan Co. v. Peterson, 181 Ga. 266, 269, 182 S. E. 15, 16-17 (1935); Miller v. Head, 186 Ga. 694, 708, 198 S. E. 680, 687-688 (1938); Stegall v. Southwest Georgia Regional Housing Authority, 197 Ga. 571, 30 S. E. 2d 196 (1944); Krasner v. Rutledge, 204 Ga. 380, 383, 49 S. E. 2d 864, 866 (1948). We conclude that the decision of the Court of Appeals does not rest on an adequate nonfederal ground and that we have jurisdiction of this appeal. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” This freedom is among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action; and municipal ordinances adopted under state authority constitute state action. Lovell v. Griffin, supra, at 450, and cases cited. This ordinance in its broad sweep makes it an offense to “solicit” citizens of the City of Baxley to become members of any “organization, union or society” which requires “fees [or] dues” from its members without first applying for and receiving from the Mayor and Council of the City a “permit” (Sections I and II) which they may grant or refuse to grant (Section V) after considering “the character of the applicant, the nature of the . . . organization for which members are desired to be solicited, and its effects upon the general welfare of [the] citizens of the City of Baxley” (Section IV). Appellant’s first contention in this Court is that the ordinance is invalid on its face because it makes enjoyment of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech contingent upon the will of the Mayor and Council of the City and thereby constitutes a prior restraint upon, and abridges, that freedom. Believing that appellant is right in that contention and that the judgment must be reversed for that reason, we confine our considerations to that particular question and do not reach other questions presented. It will be noted that appellant was not accused of any act against the peace, good order or dignity of the community, nor for any particular thing she said in soliciting employees of the manufacturing company to join the union. She was simply charged and convicted for “soliciting members for an organization without a Permit.” This solicitation, as shown by the evidence, consisted solely of speaking to those employees in their private homes about joining the union. It will also be noted that the permit is not to be issued as a matter of course, but only upon the affirmative action of the Mayor and Council of the City. They are expressly authorized to refuse to grant the permit if they do not approve of the applicant or of the union or of the union’s “effects upon the general welfare of citizens of the City of Baxley.” These criteria are without semblance of definitive standards or other controlling guides governing the action of the Mayor and Council in granting or withholding a permit. Cf. Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 271-273. It is thus plain that they act in this respect in their uncontrolled discretion. It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official — as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official — is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, this Court held invalid an Act which proscribed soliciting money or any valuable thing for “any alleged religious, charitable or philanthropic cause” unless the “cause” is approved by the secretary of the public welfare council of the state. Speaking for a unanimous Court, Mr. Justice Roberts said: “It will be noted, however, that the Act requires an application to the secretary of the public welfare council of the State; that he is empowered to determine whether the cause is a religious one, and that the issue of a certificate depends upon his affirmative action. If he finds that the cause is not that of religion, to solicit for it becomes a crime. He is not to issue a certificate as a matter of course. His decision to issue or refuse it involves appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion. He is authorized to withhold his approval if he determines that the cause is not a religious one. Such a censorship of religion ... is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth. ... [T]o condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution.” 310 U. S., at 305, 307. To the same effect are Lovell v. Griffin, supra, at 451, 452; Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 516; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 163, 164; Largent v. Texas, 318 U. S. 418, 422; Jones v. Opelika, 319 U. S. 103, adopting per curiam on rehearing the dissenting opinion in 316 U. S. 584, 600-602; Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 271; Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290, 293. It is undeniable that the ordinance authorized the Mayor and Council of the City of Baxley to grant “or refuse to grant” the required permit in their uncontrolled discretion. It thus makes enjoyment of speech contingent upon the will of the Mayor and Council of the City, although that fundamental right is made free from congressional abridgment by the First Amendment and is protected by the Fourteenth from invasion by state action. For these reasons, the ordinance, on its face, imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint upon the enjoyment of First Amendment freedoms and lays “a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution.” Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, at 307. Therefore, the judgment of conviction must fall. Reversed. “Section I. Before any person or persons, firms or organizations shall solicit membership for any organization, union or society of any sort which requires from its members the payments of membership fees, dues or is entitled to make assessment against its members, such person or persons shall make application in writing to Mayor and Council of the City of Baxley for the issuance of a permit to solicit members in such organization from among the citizens of Baxley. “Section II. Such application shall give the name and nature of the organization for which applicant desires to solicit members, whether such organization is incorporated or unincorporated, the location of its principal office and place of business and the names of its officers, along with date of its organization, and its assets and liabilities. Such application shall further cpntain .the age and residence of applicant including places of residence of applicant for past ten years; and as well as business or profession in which such applicant has been engaged during said time, and shall furnish at least three persons as references to applicant’s character. Said application shall also furnish the information as to whether applicant is a salaried employee of the organization for which he is soliciting members, and what compensation, if any, he receives for obtaining members. “Section III. This application shall be submitted to a regular meeting of Mayor and Council of City "of Baxley, and in event it is desired by Mayor and Council to investigate further the information given in the application, or in the event the applicant desires a formal hearing on such application, such hearing shall be set for a time not later than the next regular meeting of the Mayor and Council of City of Baxley. At such hearing the applicant may submit for consideration any evidence that he may .desire bearing on the application, and any interested persons shall have the right of appearing and giving evidence to the contrary. “Section IV. In passing upon such application the Mayor and Council shall consider the character of the applicant, the nature of the business of the organization for which members are desired to be solicited, and its effects upon the general welfare of citizens of the City of Baxley. “Section V. The granting or refusing to grant of such application for a permit shall be determined by vote of Mayor and Council, after consideration and hearing if same is requested by applicant or Mayor and Council, in the same manner as other matters are so granted or denied by the vote of the Mayor and Council. “Section VI. In the event that person making application is salaried employee or officer of the organization for which he desires to seek members among the citizens of Baxley, or persons employed in the City of Baxley, or 'received a fee of any sort from the obtaining of such members, he shall be issued a permit and license for soliciting such members upon the payment of $2,000.00 per year. Also $500.00 for each member obtained. “Section VII. Any person, persons, firm, or corporation soliciting members for any organization from among the citizens or persons employed in the City of Baxley without first obtaining a permit and license therefor shall be punished as provided by Section 85 of Criminal Code of City of Baxley. “Section VIII. All Ordinances of City of Baxley in conflict with [this] ordinance are hereby repealed. “Section IX. Should any section or portion of this Ordinance be held void, it shall not affect the remaining sections and portions of same.” This reference obviously was to the National Labor Relations Board as Georgia has no comparable agency. During that continuance, appellant brought an action in the Superior Court of the county asking an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance and a declaration of its invalidity. The Superior Court found against petitioner and on appeal the Supreme Court of the State affirmed, holding that “If the ordinance is invalid, by reason of its unconstitutionality, or for other cause, such invalidity would be a complete defense to any prosecution that might be instituted for its violation.” Staub v. Mayor of Baxley, 211 Ga. 1, 2, 83 S. E. 2d 606, 608. Mamie Merritt was also charged with the same offense and was tried with appellant and was likewise convicted and given the same sentence, but it has been stipulated that the judgment of conviction against her shall await, and conform with, the result of this appeal. For that reason we are not here confronted with any question concerning the right of the city to regulate the pursuit of an occupation. Cf. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516. The ordinance involved in that case proscribed the distribution of literature in the City of Griffin “without first obtaining written permission from the City Manager . . . ,” which he might grant or withhold in his discretion. 303 U. S., at 447. This Court, in reversing a conviction under that ordinance, said: “Legislation of the type of the ordinance in question would restore the system of license and censorship in its baldest form.” Id., at 452. There the ordinance proscribed the leasing of a hall for a public speech or the holding of public meetings “without a permit from the Chief of Police.” 307 U. S., at 501. Members of a labor union sought permission to hold public meetings in the city for the “organization of unorganized workers into labor unions.” Id., at 504. Permission was refused on the ground that such meetings would cause disorder. They then sought and obtained an injunction prohibiting the city from interfering with their rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. The case came here on certiorari and this Court affirmed. In the course of his opinion, Mr. Justice Roberts said the ordinance was “void upon its face” and that “. . . uncontrolled official suppression [of free speech and peaceable assembly] cannot be made a substitute for the duty to maintain order in connection with the exercise of the right.” Id., at 516. There an ordinance of Irvington, New Jersey, in effect banned “communication of any views or the advocacy of any cause from door to door” (308 U. S., at 163), without “a written permit from the Chief of Police . . . .” Id., at 157. This Court held the ordinance invalid as a prior restraint upon First Amendment rights and said that such an ordinance “strikes at the very heart of the constitutional guarantees.” Id., at 164. This Court said: “The mayor issues a permit only if after thorough investigation he 'deems it proper or advisable.’ Dissemination of ideas depends upon the approval of the distributor by the official. This is administrative censorship in an extreme form. It abridges the freedom of religion, of the press and of speech guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” 318 U. S., at 422. Chief Justice Stone said: “[H]ere it is the prohibition of publication, save at the uncontrolled will of public officials, which transgresses constitutional limitations and makes the ordinance void on its face.” 316 U. S., at 602. There the city allowed use of its park for public meetings, but by custom a permit was required from its park commissioner. A religious group known as Jehovah’s Witnesses scheduled several Bible talks to be held in the city park. They applied for a permit to do so, but it was refused. Later they proceeded to hold such a meeting without a permit and when Niemotko opened the meeting he was arrested and later convicted for disturbing the peace, though the meeting was orderly and the real cause was the failure to have a permit. This Court reversed. After pointing out there were no standards governing the discretion of the park commissioner in granting or refusing such permits and referring to Hague v. C. I. O., supra; Lovell v. Griffin, supra, and other cases, it said: “It is clear that all that has been said about the invalidity of such limitless discretion must be equally applicable here. . . . The right to equal protection of the laws, in the exercise of those freedoms of speech and religion protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, has a firmer foundation than the whims or personal opinions of a local governing body.” 340 U. S., at 272. There it was said: “This interpretation allows the police commissioner, an administrative official, to exercise discretion in denying subsequent permit applications [to hold outdoor religious meetings] on the basis of his interpretation, at that time, of what is deemed to be conduct condemned by the ordinance. We have here, then, an ordinance which gives an administrative official discretionary power to control in advance the right of citizens to speak on religious matters on the streets of New York. As such, the ordinance is clearly invalid as a prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights.” 340 U. S., at 293. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

C

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court. In this, the third of the denationalization cases decided today, issues concerning Section 401 (c) of the Nationality Act of 1940 are presented. That statute provides: “A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: “(c) Entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state unless expressly authorized by the laws of the United States, if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state . ...” We need not in this case consider the constitutionality of Section 401 (c). This case thus differs from Perez v. Brownell, ante, p. 44, and Trop v. Dulles, ante, p. 86, where questions of the constitutionality of Sections 401 (e) and 401 (g) were determined. The issues with which we are concerned here relate solely to problems of burden of proof. Petitioner brought this action in a District Court praying for a judgment declaring him to be a citizen of the United States. The controversy arose from petitioner’s application to a United States Consulate in Japan for an American passport. Instead of the passport, he received more than a year later a Certificate of the Loss of the Nationality of the United States. Petitioner alone testified at the trial, the Government introducing no testimony. What follows is a summary of his testimony. Petitioner was born in Artesia, California, in 1916. By reason of that fact, he was a citizen of the United States, and because of the citizenship of his parents, he was also considered by Japan to be a citizen of that country. Petitioner was educated in the schools of this country and lived here until 1939. In August of that year, having been graduated from the University of California with a degree in engineering, he went to Japan, intending to stay between two and five years, visiting and studying. He knew that his father had registered him in the family register in Japan. In November of 1939 petitioner’s father, who was paying his way, died in this country and petitioner, lacking funds, went to work for an aircraft manufacturing company in Japan for the equivalent of $15 a month. He was unable to accumulate any savings. Pursuant to the Military Service Law of Japan, petitioner was required about June 1940 to take a physical examination, and on March 1, 1941, he was inducted into the Japanese Army. The Military Service Law provided for imprisonment for evasion. Between the time of his physical examination and his induction, petitioner did not protest his induction or attempt to renounce his Japanese nationality, to return to the United States or to secure the aid of United States consular officials. He testified that he was told by a friend who worked at the American Embassy that the American Consulate could not aid a dual national; the Government has not contended that this was not so. He further testified that he had heard rumors about the brutality of the Japanese secret police which made him afraid to make any protest. Petitioner testified that he did not know when he went to Japan that he was likely to be drafted. He said he was not aware at that time of any threat of war between the United States and Japan. He had left the United States just prior to the outbreak of war in Europe and two years and four months before Pearl Harbor. He testified that he was unable to read the Japanese language and lived too far out in the country to subscribe to an English-language newspaper, and therefore did not read any newspapers while in Japan. Petitioner served as a maintenance man or mechanic in an Air Force regiment in China, Indo-China, the Philippines and Manchuria. He testified that when war between the United States and Japan began, he expressed the opinion to a group of noncommisioned officers that there was no chance of Japan’s winning the war. That night he was given a thorough beating; he was beaten almost every day for a month, and afterwards he was beaten “a couple days a month.” He won the nickname “America.” After hearing this testimony, the district judge announced from the bench that “the court simply does not believe the testimony of the witness. That is all. I simply do not believe his testimony.” He went on to express his opinion that petitioner “went over because as a Japanese citizen under the laws of Japan it was necessary for him to serve his hitch in the army. . . . He went over and he waited until they reached him on the draft, and when they did he was drafted.” Formally, the court found as a fact on the basis of petitioner’s testimony alone, which did not include an admission to that effect, that his “entry and service in the Japanese Armed Forces was his free and voluntary act.” Therefore he was held to have lost his nationality under Section 401 (c) and judgment was rendered for respondent. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that judgment. We granted certiorari. 352 U. S. 907. Whatever divergence of view there may be as to what conduct may, consistent with the Constitution, be said to result in loss of nationality, cf. Perez v. Brownell, ante, pp. 44, 62, it is settled that no conduct results in expatriation unless the conduct is engaged in voluntarily. Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U. S. 133. The Government does not contend otherwise. Likewise, the parties are agreed that when a citizenship claimant proves his birth in this country or acquisition of American citizenship in some other way, the burden is upon the Government to prove an act that shows expatriation by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. In Oonzales v. London, 350 U. S. 920, we held that the rule as to burden of proof in denaturalization cases applied to expatriation cases under Section 401 (j) of the Nationality Act of 1940. We now conclude that the same rule should govern cases under all the subsections of Section 401. The parties disagree as to whether the Government must also prove that the expatriating act was voluntarily performed or whether the citizenship claimant bears the burden of proving that his act was involuntary. Petitioner contends that voluntariness is an element of the expatriating act, and as such must be proved by the Government. The Government, on the other hand, relies upon the ordinary rule that duress is a matter of affirmative defense and contends that the party claiming that he acted involuntarily must overcome a presumption of voluntariness. Because the consequences of denationalization are so drastic petitioner’s contention as to burden of proof of voluntariness should be sustained. This Court has said that in a denaturalization case, “instituted ... for the purpose of depriving one of the precious right of citizenship previously conferred we believe the facts and the law should be construed as far as is reasonably possible in favor of the citizen.” Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 122. The same principle applies to expatriation cases, and it calls for placing upon the Government the burden of persuading the trier of fact by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence that the act showing renunciation of citizenship was voluntarily performed. While one finds in the legislative history of Section 401, and particularly Section 401 (c), recognition of the concept of voluntariness, there is no discussion of the problem of the burden of proof. What is clear is that the House Committee which considered the bill rejected a proposal to enact a conclusive presumption of voluntariness in the case of dual nationals entering or serving in the military forces of the nation of their second nationality. It is altogether consonant with this history to place upon the Government the burden of proving vol-untariness. The Court has said that “Rights of citizenship are not to be destroyed by an ambiguity.” Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325, 337. The reference was to an ambiguity in a treaty, but the principle there stated demands also that evidentiary ambiguities are not to be resolved against the citizen. Finally, the Government contends that even if it has the burden of proving voluntariness by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence, that burden has been met in this case. What view the District Court took of the burden of proof does not clearly appear. The Court of Appeals seemed at one point to accept the evidence in the District Court as sufficient even on the view of the burden of proof as above stated. That conclusion is not supportable. Of course, the citizenship claimant is subject to the rule dictated by common experience that one ordinarily acts voluntarily. Unless voluntariness is put in issue, the Government makes its case simply by proving the objective expatriating act. But here petitioner showed that he was conscripted in a totalitarian country to whose conscription law, with its penal sanctions, he was subject. This adequately injected the issue of voluntariness and required the Government to sustain its burden of proving voluntary conduct by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. The Government has not sustained that burden on this record. The fact that petitioner made no protest and did not seek aid of American officials — efforts that, for all that appears, would have been in vain — does not satisfy the requisite standard of proof. Nor can the district judge’s disbelief of petitioner’s story of his motives and fears fill the evidentiary gap in the Government’s case. The Government’s only affirmative evidence was that petitioner went to Japan at a time when he was subject to conscription. On this record the Government has not established the voluntary conduct that is the essential ingredient of expatriation. The fact that this petitioner, after being conscripted, was ordered into active service in wartime on the side of a former enemy of this country must not be permitted to divert our attention from the necessity of maintaining a strict standard of proof in all expatriation cases. When the Government contends that the basic right of citizenship has been lost, it assumes an onerous burden of proof. Regardless of what conduct is alleged to result in expatriation, whenever the issue of voluntariness is put in issue, the Government must in each case prove voluntary conduct by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. 54 Stat. 1168, 1169. The present provision, Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, § 349 (a) (3), 66 Stat. 267, 268, 8 U. S. C. § 1481 (a)(3), eliminates the necessity that the expatriate have or acquire the nationality of the foreign state. 235 F. 2d 135. See also, e. g., Acheson v. Murata, 342 U. S. 900; Acheson v. Okimura, 342 U. S. 899; Dos Reis ex rel. Camara v. Nicolls, 161 F. 2d 860; 41 Op. Atty. Gen., No. 16. Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665; Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118. Gonzales v. London, 350 U. S. 920; Acheson v. Murata, 342 U. S. 900, and Acheson v. Okimura, 342 U. S. 899, are not dispositive of the issue. The holding in Gonzales went to the Government’s burden of proof in general without specific regard to voluntariness. Murata and Okimura came here on appeal from a District Court’s holding that various subsections of § 401 were unconstitutional. 99 F. Supp. 587, 591. We remanded for specific findings as to the circumstances attending the alleged acts of expatriation and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. In Bruni v. Dulles, 98 U. S. App. D. C. 358, 235 F. 2d 855, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered Gonzales as requiring the Government to prove voluntariness by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. Lehmann v. Acheson, 206 F. 2d 592, can also be read as placing that burden on the Government. It is clear, at least, that the Third Circuit, Lehmann v. Acheson, supra; Perri v. Dulles, 206 F. 2d 586, as well as the Second Circuit, Augello v. Dulles, 220 F. 2d 344, regards conscription as creating a presumption of involuntariness which the Government must rebut. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit took a contrary view prior to Bruni v. Dulles, supra. Alata v. Dulles, 95 U. S. App. D. C. 182, 221 F. 2d 52; Acheson v. Maenza, 92 U. S. App. D. C. 85, 202 F. 2d 453. See also United States v. Minker, 350 U. S. 179, 197 (concurring opinion): “When we deal with citizenship we tread on sensitive ground.” See Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization on H. R. 6127, superseded by H. R. 9980, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 150, 201. The proposal was advanced by the State Department spokesman, Mr. Flournoy, who said: “If a man is a citizen of the United States and Japan, both countries, as he would be in all of these cases we have been discussing, and he is living in Japan, and he reaches the military age, and they call him for service, it should not make any difference from our point of view whether he makes a protest or not. It is his duty to serve. He is in that country, and he is a citizen of that country, and if we accept his plea of duress in these cases it practically nullifies the whole thing, so we should put a proviso in reading somewhat as follows: That if an American national also has the nationality of a foreign country and is residing therein at a time when he reaches the age for liability of military service his entry into the armed forces thereof shall be presumed to be voluntary. In other words, a plea of duress would not make any difference. He is a citizen of that country, and he is presumed to know that when the time comes he will have to serve.” Id., at 150. Spokesmen for the Labor and Justice Departments objected, stating that dual nationals should have the opportunity to be heard on the question of duress. Id,., at 150-156; 169-170; 200-203. At the time of the hearings § 401 (c) was not limited to dual nationals. The Senate Committee inserted the limitation. See 86 Cong. Rec. 12817. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has correctly concluded that little significance attaches to the failure of the House Committee to accept a suggestion that the word “voluntarily” be inserted in subsections (b) through (g) of §401. Hearings, supra, at 397-398. “It seems to us that the failure of the committee to accept this amendment is of little significance in view of the legislative history . . . indicating that such amendment was unnecessary and superfluous.” Dos Reis ex rel. Camara v. Nicolls, 161 F. 2d 860, 864, n. 4. 235 F. 2d, at 140. But see id., at 141. Petitioner’s evidence of conscription also dispelled the presumption created by § 402 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1169, that a national who remains six months or more within the country of which either he or his parents have been nationals, has expatriated himself under §401 (c) or (d). Even if valid, “Section 402 does not enlarge §401 (c) or (d),” Kawakita v. United States, 343 U. S. 717, 730, and, like the analogous provision of § 2 of the Act of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat. 1228, it creates “a presumption easy to preclude, and easy to overcome.” United States v. Gay, 264 U. S. 353, 358. The ambiguous terms of § 402 have since been superseded by § 349 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 268, 8 U. S. C. § 1481 (b), which establishes a conclusive presumption of voluntariness on the part of a dual national who performs an expatriating act if he had resided in the state of his second nationality an aggregate of ten years or more immediately prior thereto. Of course, the new statutory presumption is not in issue in this case and there is no need to consider its validity. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. MR. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. Pursuant to regulations promulgated by the North Carolina Department of Correction, appellants prohibited inmates from soliciting other inmates to join appellee, the North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc. (Union), barred all meetings of the Union, and refused to deliver packets of Union publications that had been mailed in bulk to several inmates for redistribution among other prisoners. The Union instituted this action, based on 42 U. S. C. § 1983, to challenge these policies. It alleged that appellants’ efforts to prevent the operation of a prisoners’ union violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of it and its members and that the refusal to grant the Union those privileges accorded several other organizations operating within the prison system deprived the Union of equal protection of the laws. A three-judge court was convened. After a hearing, the court found merit in the Union’s free speech, association, and equal protection arguments, and enjoined appellants from preventing inmates from soliciting other prisoners to join the Union and from “refus[ing] receipt of the Union’s publications on the ground that they are calculated to encourage membership in the organization or solicit joining.” The court also held that the Union “shall be accorded the privilege of holding meetings under such limitations and control as are neutrally applied to all inmate organizations . . . .” 409 F. Supp. 937. We noted probable jurisdiction to consider whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments extend prisoner labor unions such protection. 429 U. S. 976. We have decided that they do not, and we accordingly reverse the judgment of the District Court. I Appellee, an organization self-denominated as a Prisoners’ Labor Union, was incorporated in late 1974, with a stated goal of “the promotion of charitable labor union purposes” and the formation of a “prisoners’ labor union at every prison and jail in North Carolina to seek through collective bargaining . . . to improve . . . working . . . conditions. ...” It also proposed to work toward the alteration or elimination of practices and policies of the Department of Correction which it did not approve of, and to serve as a vehicle for the presentation and resolution of inmate grievances. By early 1975, the Union had attracted some 2,000 inmate “members” in 40 different prison units throughout North Carolina. The State of North Carolina, unhappy with these developments, set out to prevent inmates from forming or operating a “union.” While the State tolerated individual “membership,” or belief, in the Union, it sought to prohibit inmate solicitation of other inmates, meetings between members of the Union, and bulk mailings concerning the Union from outside sources. Pursuant to a regulation promulgated by the Department of Correction on March 26, 1975, such solicitation and group activity were proscribed. Suit was filed by the Union in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on March 18, 1975, approximately a week before the date upon which the regulation was to take effect. The Union claimed that its rights, and the rights of its members, to engage in protected free speech, association, and assembly activities were being infringed by the no-solicitation and no-meeting rules. It also alleged a deprivation of equal protection of the laws in that the Jaycees and Alcoholics Anonymous were permitted to have meetings and other organizational rights, such as the distribution of bulk mailing material, that the Union was being denied. A declaratory judgment and injunction against continuation of these restrictive policies were sought, as were substantial damages. °A three-judge District Court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284, while dismissing the Union’s prayers for damages and attorney’s fees, granted it substantial injunctive relief. The court found that appellants “permitted” inmates to join the Union, but “oppose{d] the solicitation of other inmates to join,” either by inmate-to-inmate solicitation or by correspondence. 409 F. Supp., at 941. The court noted, id., at 942: “[Appellants] sincerely believe that the very existence of the Union will increase the burdens of administration and constitute a threat of essential discipline and control. They are apprehensive that inmates may use the Union to establish a power bloc within the inmate population which could be utilized to cause work slowdowns or stoppages or other undesirable concerted-activity.” The District Court concluded, however, that there was “no consensus” among experts on these matters, and that it was “left with no firm conviction that an association of inmates is necessarily good or bad . . . .” Id., at 942-943. The court felt that since appellants countenanced the bare fact of Union membership, it had to allow solicitation activity, whether by inmates or by outsiders: “We are unable to perceive why it is necessary or essential to security and order in the prisons to forbid solicitation of membership in a union permitted by the authorities. This is not a case of riot. There is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that the Union has been utilized to disrupt the operation of the penal institutions.” Id., at 944. The other questions, respecting the bulk mailing by the Union of literature into the prisons for distribution and the question of meetings of inmate members, the District Court resolved against appellants “by application of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.” Ibid. Finding that such meetings and bulk mailing privileges had been permitted the Jaycees, Alcoholics Anonymous, and, in one institution, the Boy Scouts, the District Court concluded that appellants “may not pick and choose depending on [their] approval or disapproval of the message or purpose of the group” unless “the activity proscribed is shown to be detrimental to proper penological objectives, subversive to good discipline, or otherwise harmful.” Ibid. The court concluded that appellants had failed to meet this burden. Appropriate injunctive relief was thereupon ordered. II A The District Court, we believe, got off on the wrong foot in this case by not giving appropriate deference to the decisions of prison administrators and appropriate recognition to the peculiar and restrictive circumstances of penal confinement. While litigation by prison inmates concerning conditions of confinement, challenged other than under the Eighth Amendment, is of recent vintage, this Court has long recognized that "[1] awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.” Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 285 (1948); see also Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817, 822 (1974); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 555 (1974). The fact of confinement and the needs of the penal institution impose limitations on constitutional rights, including those derived from the First Amendment, which are implicit in incarceration. We noted in Pell v. Procunier, supra, at 822: “[A] prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system. Thus, challenges to prison restrictions that are asserted to inhibit First Amendment interests must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies and goals of the corrections system, to whose custody and care the prisoner has been committed in accordance with due process of law.” Perhaps the most obvious of the First Amendment rights that are necessarily curtailed by confinement are those associational rights that the First Amendment protects outside of prison walls. The concept of incarceration itself entails a restriction on the freedom of inmates to associate with those outside of the penal institution. Equally as obvious, the inmate’s “status as a prisoner” and the operational realities of a prison dictate restrictions on the associational rights among inmates. Because the realities of running a penal institution are complex and difficult, we have also recognized the wide-ranging deference to be accorded the decisions of prison administrators. We noted in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 405 (1974): “[CJourts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform. Judicial recognition of that fact reflects no more than a healthy sense of realism. Moreover, where state penal institutions are involved, federal courts have a further reason for deference to the appropriate prison authorities.” (Footnote omitted.) See also Cruz v. Beto, 405 U. S. 319, 321 (1972). It is in this context that the claims of the Union must be examined. B State correctional officials uniformly testified that the concept of a prisoners’ labor union was itself fraught with potential dangers, whether or not such a union intended; illegally, to press for collective-bargaining recognition. Appellant Ralph Edwards, the Commissioner of the Department of Correction, stated in his affidavit: “The creation of an inmate union will naturally result in increasing the existing friction between inmates and prison personnel. It can also create friction between union inmates and non-union inmates.” Appellant David Jones, the Secretary of the Department of Correction, stated: “The existence of a union of inmates can create a divisive element within the inmate population. In a time when the units are already seriously over-crowded, such an element could aggravate already tense conditions. The purpose of the union may well be worthwhile projects. But it is evident that the inmate organizers could, if recognized as spokesman for all inmates, make themselves to be power figures among the inmates. If the union is successful, these inmates would be in a position to misuse their influence. After the inmate union has become established, there would probably be nothing this Department could do to terminate its existence, even if its activities became overtly subversive to the functioning of the Department. Work stoppages and mutinies are easily foreseeable. Riots and chaos would almost inevitably result. Thus, even if the purposes of the union are as stated, in the complaint, the potential for a dangerous situation exists, a situation which could not be brought under control.” The District Court did not reject these beliefs as fanciful or erroneous. It, instead, noted that they were held “sincerely,” and were arguably correct. 409 F. Supp., at 942-943. Without a showing that these beliefs were unreasonable, it was error for the District Court to conclude that appellants needed to show more. In particular, the burden was not on appellants to show affirmatively that the Union would be “detrimental to proper penological objectives” or would constitute a “present danger to security and order.” Id., at 944A945. Rather, “[s]uch considerations are peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials, and, in the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have exaggerated their response to these considerations, courts should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment in such matters.” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S., at 827. The necessary and correct result of our deference to the informed discretion of prison administrators permits them, and not the courts, to make the difficult judgments concerning institutional operations in situations such as this. The District Court, however, gave particular emphasis to what it viewed as appellants’ tolerance of membership by inmates in the Union as undermining appellants’ position. It viewed a system which permitted inmate “membership” but prohibited inmate-to-inmate solicitation (as well, it should be noted, as meetings, or other group activities) as bordering “on the irrational,” and felt that “[t]he defendants’ own hypothesis in this case is that the existence of the Union and membership in it are not dangerous, for otherwise they would surely have undertaken to forbid membership.” 409 F. Supp., at 944. This, however, considerably overstates what appellants’ concession as to pure membership entails. Appellants permitted membership because of the reasonable assumption that each individual prisoner could believe what he chose to believe, and that outside individuals should be able to communicate ideas and beliefs to individual inmates. Since a member qua member incurs no dues or obligations — a prisoner apparently may become a member simply by considering himself a member — this position simply reflects the concept that thought control, by means of prohibiting beliefs, would not only be undesirable but impossible. But appellants never acquiesced in, or permitted, group activity of the Union in the nature of a functioning organization of the inmates within the prison, nor did the District Court find that they had. It is clearly not irrational to conclude that individuals may believe what they want, but that concerted group activity, or solicitation therefor, would pose additional and unwarranted problems and frictions in the operation of the State’s penal institutions. The ban on inmate solicitation and group meetings, therefore, was rationally related to the reasonable, indeed to the central, objectives of prison administration. Cf. Pell v. Procunier, supra, at 822. C The invocation of the First Amendment, whether the asserted rights are speech or associational, does not change this analysis. In a prison context, an inmate does not retain those First Amendment rights that are "inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.” Pell v. Procunier, supra, at 822. Prisons, it is obvious, differ in numerous respects from free society. They, to begin with, are populated, involuntarily, by people who have been found to have violated one or more of the criminal laws established by society for its orderly governance. In seeking a “mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives [of prisons] and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application,” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S., at 556, this Court has repeatedly recognized the need for major restrictions on a prisoner’s rights. See, e. g., id., at 561-562; Lanza v. New York, 370 U. S. 139, 143 (1962). These restrictions have applied as well where First Amendment values were implicated. See, e. g., Pell v. Procunier, supra; Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396 (1974); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215 (1976). An examination of the potential restrictions on speech or association that have been imposed by the regulations under challenge, demonstrates that the restrictions imposed are reasonable, and are consistent with the inmates' status as prisoners and with the legitimate operational considerations of the institution. To begin with, First Amendment speech rights are barely implicated in this case. Mail rights are not themselves implicated; the only question respecting the mail is that of bulk mailings. The advantages of bulk mailings to inmates by the Union are those of cheaper rates and convenience. While the District Court relied on the cheaper bulk mailing rates in finding an equal protection violation, infra, at 133, it is clear that losing these cost advantages does not fundamentally implicate free speech values. Since other avenues of outside informational flow by the Union remain available, the prohibition on bulk mailing, reasonable in the absence of First Amendment considerations, remains reasonable. Cf. Pell v. Procunier, supra; Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U. S. 843 (1974). Nor does the prohibition on inmate-to-inmate solicitation of membership trench untowardly on the inmates’ First Amendment speech rights. Solicitation of membership itself involves a good deal more than the simple expression of individual views as to the advantages or disadvantages of a union or its views; it is an invitation to collectively engage in a legitimately prohibited activity. If the prison officials are otherwise entitled to control organized union activity within the prison walls, the prohibition on solicitation for such activity is not then made impermissible on account of First Amendment considerations, for such a prohibition is then not only reasonable but necessary. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S., at 822. First Amendment associational rights, while perhaps more directly implicated by the regulatory prohibitions, likewise must give way to the reasonable considerations of penal management. As already noted, numerous associational rights are necessarily curtailed by the realities of confinement. They may be curtailed whenever the institution’s officials, in the exercise of their informed discretion, reasonably conclude that such associations, whether through group meetings or otherwise, possess the likelihood of disruption to prison order or stability, or otherwise interfere with the legitimate penological objectives of the prison environment. As we noted in Pell v. Procunier, supra, at 823, “central to all other corrections goals is the institutional consideration of internal security within the corrections facilities themselves.” Appellant prison officials concluded that the presence, perhaps even the objectives, of a prisoners’ labor union would be detrimental to order and security in the prisons, supra, at 127. It is enough to say that they have not been conclusively shown to be wrong in this view. The interest in preserving order and authority in the prisons is self-evident. Prison life, and relations between the inmates themselves and between the inmates and prison officials or staff, contain the ever-present potential for violent confrontation and conflagration. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S., at 561-562. Responsible prison officials must be permitted to take reasonable steps to forestall such a threat, and they must be permitted to act before the time when they can compile a dossier on the eve of a riot. The case of a prisoners’ union, where the focus is on the presentation of grievances to, and encouragement of adversary relations with, institution officials surely would rank high on anyone’s list of potential trouble spots. If the appellants’ views as to the possible detrimental effects of the organizational activities of the Union are reasonable, as we conclude they are, then the regulations are drafted no more broadly than they need be to meet the perceived threat — which stems directly from group meetings and group organizational activities of the Union. Cf. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S., at 412-416. When weighed against the First Amendment rights asserted, these institutional reasons are sufficiently weighty to prevail. D The District Court rested on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down appellants’ prohibition against the receipt and distribution of bulk mail from the Union as well as the prohibition of Union meetings among the inmates. It felt that this was a denial of equal protection because bulk mailing and meeting rights had been extended to the Jaycees, Alcoholics Anonymous, and the Boy Scouts. The court felt that just as outside the prison, a “government may not pick and choose depending upon its approval or disapproval of the message or purpose of the group,” 409 F. Supp., at 944, so, too, appellants could not choose among groups without first demonstrating that the activity proscribed is “detrimental to proper penological objectives, subversive to good discipline, or otherwise harmful.” Ibid. This analysis is faulty for two reasons. The District Court erroneously treated this case as if the prison environment were essentially a “public forum.” We observed last Term in upholding a ban on political meetings at Fort Dix that a Government enclave such as a military base was not a public forum. Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828 (1976). We stated, id., at 838 n. 10: “The fact that other civilian speakers and entertainers had sometimes been invited to appear at Fort Dix did not of itself serve to convert Fort Dix into a public forum or to confer upon political candidates a First or Fifth Amendment right to conduct their campaigns there. The decision of the military authorities that a civilian lecture on drug abuse, a religious service by a visiting preacher at the base chapel, or a rock musical concert would be supportive of the military mission of Fort Dix surely did not leave the authorities powerless thereafter to prevent any civilian from entering Fort Dix to speak on any subject whatever.” A prison may be no more easily converted into a public forum than a military base. Thus appellants need only demonstrate a rational basis for their distinctions between organizational groups. Cf. City of Charlotte v. Firefighters, 426 U. S. 283 (1976). Here, appellants’ affidavits indicate exactly why Alcoholics Anonymous and the Jaycees have been allowed to operate within the prison. Both were seen as serving a rehabilitative purpose, working in harmony with the goals and desires of the prison administrators, and both had been determined not to pose any threat to the order or security of the institution. The affidavits indicate that the administrators’ view of the Union differed critically in both these respects. Those conclusions are not unreasonable. Prison administrators may surely conclude that the Jaycees and Alcoholics Anonymous differ in fundamental respects from appellee Union, a group with no past to speak of, and with the avowed intent to pursue an adversary relationship with the prison officials. Indeed, it would be enough to distinguish the Union from Alcoholics Anonymous to note that the chartered purpose of the Union, apparently pursued in the prison, was illegal under North Carolina law. Since a prison is most emphatically not a “public forum,” these reasonable beliefs of appellants are sufficient, cf. Greer v. Spock, supra; City of Charlotte v. Firefighters, supra. The District Court’s further requirement of a demonstrable showing that the Union was in fact harmful is inconsistent with the deference federal courts should pay to the informed discretion of prison officials. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S., at 405. It is precisely in matters such as this, the decision as to which of many groups should be allowed to operate within the prison walls, where, confronted with claims based on the Equal Protection Clause, the courts should allow the prison administrators the full latitude of discretion, unless it can be firmly stated that the two groups are sp similar that discretion has been abused. That is surely not the case here. There is nothing in the Constitution which requires prison officials to treat all inmate groups alike where differentiation is necessary to avoid an imminent threat of institutional disruption or violence. The regulations of appellants challenged in the District Court offended neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendment, and the judgment of that court holding to the contrary is Reversed. These are the corporation purposes listed in the Articles of Incorporation issued by the Secretary of State of North Carolina. Collective bargaining for inmates with respect to pay, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of incarceration is illegal under N. C. Gen. Stat. §95-98 (1975). Other allegations were contained in the complaint, respecting the opening of outgoing prison mail and the interference with visitation rights of certain paralegals. These specific allegations are not before us, and we will not deal with them further. Appellants were enjoined as follows: “(1) Inmates and all other persons shall be permitted to solicit and invite other inmates to join the plaintiff Union orally or by written or printed communication; provided, however, that access to inmates by outsiders solely for the purpose of soliciting membership may be denied except that inmate members of the Union may become entitled to be visited by free persons who are engaged with them in legitimate Union projects to the same extent that other members of free society are admitted for like purposes. “(2) Free persons otherwise entitled to visitation with inmates, be they attorneys, paralegals, friends, relatives, etc. shall not be denied access to such visitation by reason of their association or affiliation with the Union. “(3) The Union shall be accorded the privilege of bulk mailing to the extent that such a privilege is accorded other organizations. “(4) The Union and its inmate members shall be accorded the privilege of holding meetings under such limitations and control as are neutrally applied to all inmate organizations, and to the extent that other meetings of prisoners are permitted.” The District Court observed that “it is clear beyond argument that no association of prisoners may operate as a true labor union . . . .” It concluded that “it [is] of no legal significance that the charter purports, to authorize more than can lawfully be accomplished.” 409 F. Supp. 937, 940 n. 1. But, whether or not illegal activity was actually actively pursued by the Union, it is clear that its announced purpose to engage in collective bargaining is a factor which prison officials may legitimately consider in determining whether the Union is likely to be a disruptive influence, or otherwise detrimental to the effective administration of the North Carolina prison system. The District Court did hold that there was “not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that the Union has been utilized to disrupt the operation of the penal institutions.” Id., at 944. This historical finding, however, does not state that appellants’ fears as to future disruptions are groundless; there, the court indicated the opposite: “On conflicting expert opinion evidence we are left with no firm conviction that an association of inmates is necessarily good or bad .. . .” Id., at 943. The State has not hampered the ability of prison inmates to communicate their grievances to correctional officials. In banning Union solicitation or organization, appellants have merely affected one of several ways in which inmates may voice their complaints to, and seek relief, from prison officials. There exists an inmate grievance procedure through which correctional officials are informed about complaints concerning prison conditions, and through which remedial action may be secured. See Affidavit of Director Edwards, App. 127. With this presumably effective path available for the transmission of grievances, the fact that the Union’s grievance procedures might be more “desirable” does not convert the prohibitory regulations into unconstitutional acts. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 413 (1974); cf. Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828, 847 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring). The complaint alleged only that the bulk mail prohibition denied the Union equal protection of the laws: “The refusal by Defendants to allow the Prisoners’ Union Newsletter to arrive in bundles for distribution, while allowing the Jaycee Newsletter to arrive in the same manner violates Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.” The District Court, likewise, dealt with the bulk mail question only in terms of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 409 F. Supp., at 944. The ban on bulk mailing by the Union does not extend to individual mailings to individual inmates. In his affidavit, Director Edwards stated: “They are permitted to receive publications sent to them directly, but they are prohibited from receiving packets of material from unions or any other source for redistribution. This is in accordance with the Department’s policy requiring publication [s] mailed to inmates to be sent directly from the publisher. A serious security problem would result if inmates could receive packets of material and then redistribute them as they see fit. It would be impossible for the Department to inspect every magazine, every book, etc., to insure that no contraband had been placed inside the publication. The exception in regard to Jaycees is based on the recognized fact that the Jaycees are substantial citizens from the free community who are most unlikely to attempt to smuggle contraband into the union or disseminate propaganda subversive of the legitimate purposes of the prison system.” App. 129. See also N. C. Department of Correction Guidebook, Commissioner’s Administrative Directives — Publications Received by Inmates, App. 138-139. As the State has disavowed any intention of interfering with correspondence between outsiders and individual inmates in which Union matters are discussed, we do not have to discuss questions of the First Amendment right of inmates, or outsiders, see Procunier v. Martinez, supra, at 408-409, in the context of a total prohibition on the communication of information about the Union. The District Court apparently thought that solicitation by means of correspondence is prohibited, even if the general discussion of Union affairs is not, 409 F. Supp., at 941. The Union does not press this point here, and it is not alleged in its complaint, but, clearly, if the appellants are permitted to prohibit solicitation activities, they may prohibit solicitation activities by means which use the mails. The informed discretion of prison officials that there is potential danger may be sufficient for limiting rights even though this showing might be “unimpressive if . . . submitted as justification for governmental restriction of personal communication among members of the general public.” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817, 825 (1974). Director Edwards listed the objectives for which the Jaycees had been allowed within the North Carolina prison system, namely the “productive association [of inmates] with stable community representatives and the accomplishment of service projects to the community . . . .” When these objectives cease, “the functions of the organization and its opportunities to assemble as an organization would also cease.” Affidavit of Director Edwards, App. 125. With respect to Alcoholics Anonymous, he stated, id., at 126: “The objectives of the Alcoholics Anonymous Program are to provide therapeutic support, insight, and an opportunity for productive sharing of experiences among those who have encountered the deteriorative effects of alcoholism. Alcoholics Anonymous is structured on a peer pressure basis which begins while the individual client is confined and is intended to have carry over effects into Alcoholic Anonymous groups in the free community.” With respect to Alcoholics Anonymous and the Jaycees, Director Edwards stated, ibid.: “The goals and the objectives of [both] the Alcoholics Anonymous and the Jayeee Program were presented to correctional staff as meaningful courses of action with positive goals relative to the productive restoration of offenders to active, lawful participation in the community. The goals of both organizations [were] scrutinized, evaluated, and approved. Operational guidelines have been drawn up in each instance following approval to certify that the primary objective of the correctional system — to maintain order and security — would not be abridged by the operation of these programs within the confines of prison units.” Opposed to these articulated reasons for allowing these groups is his statement with respect to the Union, ibid.: “The Division of Prisons was unable to validate a substantive rehabilitation purpose or associative purpose in the design of the organization. To accept the organizational objectives of a prisoner’s union would be to approve an organization whose design and purpose would compromise the order and security of the correctional system.” See also supra, at 127. See n. 1, supra. It was acknowledged at oral argument that the Union newsletter has since reiterated the Union’s goal, as stated in the charter, and that the newsletter has contained authorization cards whereby the inmate could “authorize the agents or representatives of said Union to represent me and to act as a collective bargaining agent in all matters pertaining to rates of pay, hours of employment and all other terms and conditions of incarceration.” Record 25. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 31, 34r-35. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

C

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. MR. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari to review a declaratory judgment holding illegal under § 3 of the Clayton Act a requirements contract between the parties providing for the purchase by petitioner of all the coal it would require as boiler fuel at its Gannon Station in Tampa, Florida, over a 20-year period. 363 U. S. 836. Both the District Court, 168 F. Supp. 456, and the Court of Appeals, 276 F. 2d 766, Judge Weick dissenting, agreed with respondents that the contract fell within the proscription of § 3 and therefore was illegal and unenforceable. We cannot agree that the contract suffers the claimed antitrust illegality and, therefore, do not find it necessary to consider respondents’ additional argument that such illegality is a defense to the action and a bar to enforceability. The Facts. Petitioner Tampa Electric Company is a public utility located in Tampa, Florida. It produces and sells electric energy to a service area, including the city, extending from Tampa Bay eastward 60 miles to the center of the State, and some 30 miles in width. As of 1954 petitioner operated two electrical generating plants comprising a total of 11 individual generating units, all of which consumed oil in their burners. In 1955 Tampa Electric decided to expand its facilities by the construction of an additional generating plant to be comprised ultimately of six generating units, and to be known as the “Francis J. Gannon Station.” Although every electrical generating plant in peninsular Florida burned oil at that time, Tampa Electric decided to try coal as boiler fuel in the first two units constructed at the Gannon Station. Accordingly, it contracted with the respondents to furnish the expected coal requirements for the units. The agreement, dated May 23, 1955, embraced Tampa Electric’s “total requirements of fuel ... for the operation of its first two units to be installed at the Gannon Station . . . not less than 225,000 tons of coal per unit per year,” for a period of 20 years. The contract further provided that “if during the first 10 years of the term . . . the Buyer constructs additional units [at Gannon] in which coal is used as the fuel, it shall give the Seller notice thereof two years prior to the completion of such unit or units and upon completion of same the fuel requirements thereof shall be added to this contract.” It was understood and agreed, however, that “the Buyer has the option to be exercised two years prior to completion of said unit or units of determining whether coal or some other fuel shall be used in same.” Tampa Electric had the further option of reducing, up to 15%, the amount of its coal purchases covered by the contract after giving six months’ notice of an intention to use as fuel a by-product of any of its local customers. The minimum price was set at $6.40 per ton delivered, subject to an escalation clause based on labor cost and other factors. Deliveries were originally expected to begin in March 1957, for the first unit, and for the second unit at the completion of its construction. In April 1957, soon before the first coal was actually to be delivered and after Tampa Electric, in order to equip its first two Gannon units for the use of coal, had expended some $3,000,000 more than the cost of constructing oil-burning units, and after respondents had expended approximately $7,500,000 readying themselves to perform the contract, the latter advised petitioner that the contract was illegal under the antitrust laws, would therefore not be performed, and no coal would be delivered. This turn of events required Tampa Electric to look elsewhere for its coal requirements. The first unit at Gannon began operating August 1,1957, using coal purchased on a temporary basis, but on December 23, 1957, a purchase, order contract for the total coal requirements of the Gannon Station was made with Love and Amos Coal Company. It was for an indefinite period cancellable on 12 months’ notice by either party, or immediately upon tender of performance by respondents under the contract sued upon here. The maximum price was $8.80 per ton, depending upon the freight rate. In its purchase order to the Love and Amos Company, Tampa estimated that its requirements at the Gannon Station would be 350,000 tons in 1958; 700,000 tons in 1959 and 1960; 1,000,000 tons in 1961; and would increase thereafter, as required, to “about 2,250,000 tons per year.” The second unit at Gannon Station commenced operation 14 months after the first, i. e., October 1958. Construction of a third unit, the coal for which was to have been provided under the original contract, was also begun. The record indicates that the total consumption of coal in peninsular Florida, as of 1958, aside from Gannon Station, was approximately 700,000 tons annually. It further shows that there were some 700 coal suppliers in the producing area where respondents operated, and that Tampa Electric’s anticipated maximum requirements at Gannon Station, i. e., 2,250,000 tons annually, would approximate 1% of the total coal of the same type produced and marketed from respondents’ producing area. Petitioner brought this suit in the District Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2201, for a declaration that its contract with respondents was valid, and for enforcement according to its terms. In addition to its Clayton Act defense, respondents contended that the contract violated both §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act which, it claimed, likewise precluded its enforcement. The District Court, however, granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment on the sole ground that the undisputed facts, recited above, showed the contract to be a violation of § 3 of the Clayton Act. The Court of Appeals agreed. Neither court found it necessary to consider the applicability of the Sherman Act. Decisions of District Court and Court of Appeals. Both courts admitted that the contract “does not expressly contain the 'condition’ ” that Tampa Electric would not use or deal in the coal of respondents’ competitors. Nonetheless, they reasoned, the “total requirements” provision had the same practical effect, for it prevented Tampa Electric for a period of 20 years from buying coal from any other source for use at that station. Each court cast aside as “irrelevant” arguments citing the use of oil as boiler fuel by Tampa Electric at its other stations, and by other utilities in peninsular Florida, because oil was not in fact used at Gannon Station, and the possibility of exercise by Tampa Electric of the option reserved to it to build oil-burning units at Gannon was too remote. Found to be equally remote was the possibility of Tampa’s conversion of existing oil-burning units at its other stations to the use of coal which would not be covered by the contract with respondents. It followed, both courts found, that the “line of commerce” on which the restraint was to be tested was coal— not boiler fuels. Both courts compared the estimated coal tonnage as to which the contract pre-empted competition for 20 years, namely, 1,000,000 tons a year by 1961, with the previous annual consumption of peninsular Florida, 700,000 tons. Emphasizing that fact as well as the contract value of the coal covered by the 20-year term, i. e., $128,000,000, they held that such volume was not “insignificant or insubstantial” and that the effect of the contract would “be to substantially lessen competition,” in violation of the Act. Both courts were of the opinion that in view of the executory nature of the contract, judicial enforcement of any portion of it could not be granted without directing a violation of the Act itself, and enforcement was, therefore, denied. Application of % 3 of the Clayton Act. In the almost half century sinee Congress adopted the Clayton Act, this Court has been called upon 10 times, including the present, to pass upon questions arising under § 3. Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston Co., 258 U. S. 346 (1922), the first of the cases, held that the Act “sought to reach the agreements embraced within its sphere in their incipiency, and in the section under consideration to determine their legality by specific tests of its own. . . .” At p. 356. In sum, it was declared, § 3 condemned sales or agreements “where the effect of such sale or contract . . . would under the circumstances disclosed probably lessen competition, or create an actual tendency to monopoly.” At pp. 356-357. This was not to say, the Court emphasized, that the Act was intended to reach every “remote lessening” of competition — only those which were substantial — but the Court did not draw the line where “remote” ended and “substantial” began. There in evidence, however, was the fact that the activities of two-fifths of the Nation’s 52,000 pattern agencies were affected by the challenged device. Then, one week later, followed United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States, 258 U. S. 451 (1922), which held that even though a contract does “not contain specific agreements not to use the [goods] of a competitor,” if “the practical effect ... is to prevent such use,” it comes within the condition of the section as to exclusivity. At p. 457. The Court also held, as it had in Standard Fashion, supra, that a finding of domination of the relevant market by the lessor or seller was sufficient to support the inference that competition had or would be substantially lessened by the contracts involved there. As of that time it seemed clear that if “the practical effect” of the contract was to prevent a lessee or buyer from using the products of a competitor of the lessor or seller and the contract would thereby probably substantially lessen competition in a line of commerce, it was proscribed. A quarter of a century later, in International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392 (1947), the Court held, at least in tying cases, that the necessity of direct proof of the economic impact of such a contract was not necessary where it was established that “the volume of business affected” was not “insignificant or insubstantial” and that the effect was “to foreclose competitors from any substantial market.” At p. 396. It was only two years later, in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U. S. 293 (1949), that the Court again considered § 3 and its application to exclusive supply or, as they are commonly known, requirements contracts. It held that such contracts are proscribed by § 3 if their practical effect is to prevent lessees or purchasers from using or dealing in the goods, etc., of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller and thereby “competition has been foreclosed in a substantial share of the line of commerce affected.” At p. 314. In practical application, even though a contract is found to be an exclusive-dealing arrangement, it does not violate the section unless the court believes it probable that performance of the contract will foreclose competition in a substantial share of the line of commerce affected. Following the guidelines of earlier decisions, certain considerations must be taken. First, the line of commerce, i. e., the type of goods, wares, or merchandise, etc., involved must be determined, where it is in controversy, on the basis of the facts peculiar to the case. Second, the area of effective competition in the known fine of commerce must be charted by careful selection of the market area in which the seller operates, and to which the purchaser can practicably turn for supplies. In short, the threatened foreclosure of competition must be in relation to the market affected. As was said in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, supra: “It is clear, of course, that the ‘line of commerce’ affected need not be nationwide, at least where the purchasers cannot, as a practical matter, turn to suppliers outside their own area. Although the effect on competition will be quantitatively the same if a given volume of the industry’s business is assumed to be covered, whether or not the affected sources of supply are those of the industry as a whole or only those of a particular region, a purely quantitative measure of this effect is inadequate because the narrower the area of competition, the greater the comparative effect on the area’s competitors. Since it is the preservation of competition which is at stake, the significant proportion of coverage is that within the area of effective competition.” At p. 299, note 5. In the Standard Oil case, the area of effective competition — the relevant market — was found to be where the seller and some 75 of its competitors sold petroleum products. Conveniently identified as the Western Area, it included Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington. Similarly, in United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U. S. 495 (1948), a § 1 Sherman Act case, this Court decided the relevant market to be the competitive area in which Consolidated marketed its products, i. e., 11 Western States. The Court found Consolidated’s share of the nationwide market for the relevant line of commerce, rolled steel products, to be less than % of 1%, an “insignificant fraction of the total market,” at p. 508; and its share of the more narrow but only relevant market, 3%, was described as “a small part,” at p. 511, not sufficient to injure any competitor of United States Steel in that area or elsewhere. Third, and last, the competition foreclosed by the contract must be found to constitute a substantial share of the relevant market. That is to say, the opportunities for other traders to enter into or remain in that market must be significantly limited as was pointed out in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, supra. There the impact of the requirements contracts was studied in the setting of the large number of gasoline stations — 5,937 or 16% of the retail outlets in the relevant market — and the large number of contracts, over 8,000, together with the great volume of products involved. This combination dictated a finding that “Standard’s use of the contracts [created] just such a potential clog on competition as it was the purpose of § 3 to remove” where, as there, the affected proportion of retail sales was substantial. At p. 314. As we noted above, in United States v. Columbia Steel Co., supra, substantiality was judged on a comparative basis, i. e., Consolidated’s use of rolled steel was “a small part” when weighed against the total volume of that product in the relevant market. To determine substantiality in a given case, it is necessary to weigh the probable effect of the contract on the relevant area of effective competition, taking into account the relative strength of the parties, the proportionate volume of commerce involved in relation to the total volume of commerce in the relevant market area, and the probable immediate and future effects which pre-emption of that share of the market might have on effective competition therein. It follows that a mere showing that the contract itself involves a substantial number of dollars is ordinarily of little consequence. The Application of § 3 Here. In applying these considerations to the facts of the case before us, it appears clear that both the Court of Appeals and the District Court have not given the required effect to a controlling factor in the case — the relevant competitive market area. This omission, by itself, requires reversal, for, as we have pointed out, the relevant market is the prime factor in relation to which the ultimate question, whether the contract forecloses competition in a substantial share of the line of commerce involved, must be decided. For the purposes of this case, therefore, we need not decide two threshold questions pressed by Tampa Electric. They are whether the contract in fact satisfies the initial requirement of § 3, i. e., whether it is truly an exclusive-dealing one, and, secondly, whether the line of commerce is boiler fuels, including coal, oil and gas, rather than coal alone. We, therefore, for the purposes of this case, assume, but do not decide, that the contract is gn-exclusive-dealing arrangement within the compass of § 3, and that the line of commerce is bituminous coal. Relevant Market of Effective Competition. Neither the Court of Appeals nor the District Court considered in detail the question of the relevant .market. They do seem, however, to have been satisfied with inquiring only as to competition within “Peninsular Florida.” It was noted that the total consumption of peninsular Florida was 700,000 tons of coal per year, about equal to the estimated 1959 requirements of Tampa Electric. It was also pointed out that coal accounted for less than 6% of the fuel consumed in the entire State. The District Court concluded that though the respondents were only one of 700 coal producers who could serve the same market, peninsular Florida, the contract for a period of 20 years excluded competitors from a substantial amount of trade. Respondents contend that the coal tonnage covered by the contract must be weighed against either the total consumption of coal in peninsular Florida, or all of Florida, or the Bituminous Coal Act area comprising peninsular Florida and the Georgia “finger,” or, at most, all of Florida and Georgia. If the latter area were considered the relevant market, Tampa Electric’s proposed requirements would be 18% of the tonnage sold therein. Tampa Electric says that both courts and respondents are in error, because the “700 coal producers who could serve” it, as recognized by the trial court and admitted by respondents, operated in the Appalachian coal area and that its contract requirements were less than 1% of the total marketed production of these producers; that the relevant effective area of competition was the area in which these producers operated, and in which they were willing to compete for the consumer potential. We are persuaded that on the record in this case, neither peninsular Florida, nor the entire State of Florida, nor Florida and Georgia combined constituted the relevant market of effective competition. We do not believe that the pie will slice so thinly. By far the bulk of the overwhelming tonnage marketed from the same producing area as serves Tampa is sold outside of Georgia and Florida, and the producers were “eager” to sell more coal in those States. While the relevant competitive market is not ordinarily susceptible to a “metes and bounds” definition, cf. Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 611, it is of course the area in which respondents and the other 700 producers effectively compete. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, supra. The record shows that, like the respondents, they sold bituminous coal “suitable for [Tampa’s] requirements,” mined in parts of Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Ohio and Illinois. We take notice of the fact that the approximate total bituminous coal (and lignite) product in the year 1954 from the districts in which these 700 producers are located was 359,289,000 tons, of which some 290,567,000 tons were sold on the open market. Of the latter amount some 78,716,000 tons were sold to electric utilities. We also note that in 1954 Florida and Georgia combined consumed at least 2,304,000 tons, 1,100,000 of which were used by electric utilities, and the sources of which were mines located in no less than seven States. We take further notice that the production and marketing of bituminous coal (and lignite) from the same districts, and assumedly equally available to Tampa on a commercially feasible basis, is currently on a par with prior years. In point of statistical fact, coal consumption in the combined Florida-Georgia area has increased significantly since 1954. In 1959 more than 3,775,000 tons were there consumed, 2,913,000 being used by electric utilities including, presumably, the coal used by the petitioner. The coal continued to come from at least seven States. From these statistics it clearly appears that the proportionate volume of the total relevant coal product as to which the challenged contract pre-empted competition, less than 1%, is, conservatively speaking, quite insubstantial. A more accurate figure, even assuming pre-emption to the extent of the maximum anticipated total requirements, 2,250,000 tons a year, would be .77%. Effect on Competition in the Relevant Market. It may well be that in the context of antitrust legislation protracted requirements contracts are suspect, but they have not been declared illegal per se. Even though a single contrict between single traders may fall within the initial broad proscription of the section, it must also suffer the qualifying disability, tendency to work a substantial — not remote — lessening of competition in the relevant competitive market. It is urged that the present contract pre-empts competition to the extent of purchases worth perhaps $128,000,000, and that this “is, of course, not insignificant or insubstantial.” While $128,000,000 is a considerable sum of money, even in these days, the dollar volume, by itself, is not the test, as we have already pointed out. The remaining determination, therefore, is whether the pre-emption of competition to the extent of the tonnage involved tends to substantially foreclose competition in the relevant coal market. We think not. That market sees an annual trade in excess of 250,000,000 tons of coal and over a billion dollars — multiplied by 20 years it runs into astronomical figures. There is here neither a seller with a dominant position in the market as in Standard Fashions, supra; nor myriad outlets with substantial sales volume, coupled with an industry-wide practice of relying upon exclusive contracts, as in Standard Oil, supra; nor a plainly restrictive tying arrangement as in International Salt, supra. On the contrary, we seem to have only that type of contract which “may well be of economic advantage to buyers as well as to sellers.” Standard Oil Co. v. United States, supra, at p. 306. In the case of the buyer it “may assure supply,” while on the part of the seller it “may make possible the substantial reduction of selling expenses, give protection against price fluctuations, and . . . offer the possibility of a predictable market.” Id., at 306-307. The 20-year period of the contract is singled out as the principal vice, but at least in the case of public utilities the assurance of a steady and ample supply of fuel is necessary in the public interest. Otherwise consumers are left unprotected against service failures owing to shutdowns; and increasingly unjustified costs might result in more burdensome rate structures eventually to be reflected in the consumer’s bill. The compelling validity of such considerations has been recognized fully in the natural gas public utility field. This is not to say that utilities are immunized from Clayton Act proscriptions, but merely that, in judging the term of a requirements contract in relation to the substan-tiality of the foreclosure of competition, particularized considerations of the parties’ operations are not irrelevant. In weighing the various factors, we have decided that in the competitive bituminous coal marketing area involved here the contract sued upon does not tend to foreclose a substantial volume of competition. We need not discuss the respondents’ further contention that the contract also violates § 1 and § 2 of the Sherman Act, for if it does not fall within the broader proscription of § 3 of the Clayton Act it follows that it is not forbidden by those of the former. Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States, supra, at pp. 608-609. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the District Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that the District Court and the Court of Appeals correctly decided this case and would therefore affirm their judgments. “It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods ... for use, consumption, or resale within the United States ... on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods ... of a competitor or competitors of the . . . seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.” 15 U. S. C. § 14. In addition to their claim under § 3 of the Clayton Act, respondents argue the contract is illegal under the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1-2. The original contract was with Potter Towing Company, and by subsequent agreements with Tampa Electric responsibility thereunder was assumed by respondent West Kentucky Coal Company. Cf. Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 U. S. 516. For discussion of previous cases, see Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U. S. 293, 300-305. See International Boxing Club v. United States, 358 U. S. 242. In support of these contentions petitioner urges us to consider that it remains free to convert existing oil-burning units at its other plants to coal-burning units, the fuel for which it would be free to purchase from any seller in the market; also that just as it is permitted to use oil at its other plants, so, too, it may construct all future Gannon units as oil burners; and that in any event it is free to draw a maximum of 15% of its Gannon fuel requirements from by-products of local customers. Petitioner further argues that its novel reliance upon coal in fact created new fuel competition in an area that theretofore relied almost exclusively upon oil and, to a lesser extent, upon natural gas. Oil and, to a lesser extent, natural gas are the primary fuels consumed in Florida. Peabody Coal Company offered to supply petitioner with coal from its mines in western Kentucky, for use in the units at another of its Florida stations, and that offer prompted a renegotiation of the price petitioner was paying for the oil then being consumed at that station. U. S. Bureau of the Census. I U. S. Census of Mineral Industries: 1954, Series: MI-12B, p. 4 (1957). Id., at 12B-6. 1,569,000 tons from counties in West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina; 412,000 tons from counties in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee; the balance was produced in other counties in West Virginia, Virginia and western Kentucky. Id., at 12B-10. United States Dept, of Interior, Bureau of Mines, II Minerals Yearbook (Fuels), 1959. United States Dept, of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Market Report, M. M. S. No. 3035, p. 23 (1960). These statistics were taken from sources cited by respondents. 1,787,000 tons from certain counties in West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina; 1,321,000 tons from counties in Alabama, Georgia and elsewhere in Tennessee; 665,000 tons from the western Kentucky fields; 2,000 tons from other counties in West Virginia and Virginia. Ibid. In this connection we note incidentally that in Appalachian Coals, Inc., v. United States, 288 U. S. 344, 369 (1933), cited by respondents, Chief Justice Hughes quoted testimony showing that in 1932 it was nothing those days “for one interest or one concern to buy several million tons of coal.” At n. 7. The findings of the District Court showed that one utility consumed 2,485,000 tons of coal a year. Other concerns had requirements running from 30,000 to 250,000 tons annually, while a textile manufacturer used 600,000 tons. At p. 370, n. 8. The Chief Justice also stated in his opinion that, within 24 counties in Kentucky, Tennessee (in both of which respondents operate) and their competitive States of Virginia and West Virginia, “there are over 1,620,000 acres of coal bearing land, containing approximately 9,000,000,000 net tons of recoverable coal . . . .” At p. 369. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Minton delivered the opinion of the Court. The question we have for decision here is whether petitioner, a clerical employee of respondent railroad, is within the coverage of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. § 1, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 53 Stat. 1404, 45 U. S. C. § 51. Petitioner is employed entirely in respondent’s office building in Philadelphia. Her duties consist of filing original tracings of all of respondent’s engines, cars, parts, tracks, bridges, and other structures, from which blueprints of those items are made. There are some 325,000 tracings on file in the office in which petitioner works. Whenever an order for blueprints comes in from anywhere in respondent’s system, it is petitioner’s responsibility to fill the order by securing the correct tracings from the files. These she takes to the blueprint maker in the same office building. After the blueprints are made, it is petitioner’s further duty to return the original tracings to the appropriate file. About 67% of the blueprints so made are sent to points outside Pennsylvania. The files which petitioner attends are the sole depository of the original tracings of the structural details of all of respondent’s rolling stock, trackage, and other equipment and installations, and as such represent a fund of documents without which maintenance of the operating system would be impossible. Petitioner was injured when a cracked window pane in her office blew in upon her. She brought suit for personal injury under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. On respondent’s motion to dismiss, the District Court held that petitioner was not within the coverage of § 1 of the Act and, there being no diversity of citizenship between the parties, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 227 F. 2d 810. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the question presented in the administration of the Act. 350 U. S.965. As originally enacted, § 1 provided that every railroad, “while engaging” in interstate commerce, “shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce ... for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, boats, wharves, or other equipment.” 35 Stat. 65. A further paragraph was added to the section in 1939, and it is clear that two specific problems which the amendment sought at least to remedy were the results of this Court’s holdings that, at the moment of his injury, the employee as well as the railroad had to be engaged in interstate commerce in order to come within the coverage of § 1, and that employees engaged in construction of new facilities were not covered. S. Rep. No. 661, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 2-3; Southern Pacific Co. v. Gileo, decided today, ante, p. 493. The amendment took the form of an expanded definition of “person . . . employed” in interstate commerce. The amendment reads: “Any employee of a carrier, any part of whose duties as such employee shall be the furtherance of interstate or foreign commerce; or shall, in any way directly or closely and substantially, affect such commerce as above set forth shall, for the purposes of this Act, be considered as being employed by such carrier in such commerce and shall be considered as entitled to the benefits of this Act . . . .” 53 Stat. 1404. No argument is made that Congress could not constitutionally include petitioner within the coverage of the Act. The argument is that the amendment was narrowly drawn to remedy specific evils and that to construe it to include petitioner would amount to inclusion in the Act of virtually all railroad employees — a result which respondent assumes is unintended and undesirable. The argument takes several forms. First, it is said that “commerce” in the Act means only transportation and that petitioner is not employed in transportation. See Shanks v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 239 U. S. 556, 559-560. But the interstate commerce in which respondent is engaged is interstate transportation. If “any part” of petitioner’s duties is in “furtherance” of or substantially affects interstate commerce, it also is in “furtherance” of or substantially affects interstate transportation. The. test for coverage under the amendment is not whether the employee is engaged in transportation, but rather whether what he does in any way furthers or substantially affects transportation. Nor can we resolve the issue presented here in terms of whether or not clerical employees as a class are excluded from the benefits of the statute. The 1939 amendment was designed to obliterate fine distinctions as to coverage between employees who, for the purpose of this remedial legislation, should be treated alike. There is no meaningful distinction, in terms of whether the employee’s duties are clerical or not, between petitioner and, for illustration, an assistant chief timekeeper, Straub v. Reading Co., 220 F. 2d 177, or a messenger boy carrying waybills and grain orders between separate local offices and freight stations, Bowers v. Wabash R. Co., 246 S. W. 2d 535, or a lumber inspector hurt while inspecting ties at a lumber company, Ericksen v. Southern Pacific Co., 39 Cal. 2d 374, 246 P. 2d 642 — all of whom have been held covered by the 1939 amendment. See also Lillie v. Thompson, 332 U. S. 459. Nor are the benefits of the Act limited to those exposed to the special hazards of the railroad industry. The Act has not been so interpreted, and the 1939 amendment specifically affords protection to “any employee” whose duties bring him within that amendment. There is no basis in the language of § 1 for confining liability of the railroad so as to exclude any class of railroad employees as a class. The benefits of the Act are not limited to those who have cinders in their hair, soot on their faces, or callouses on their hands. Section 1 cannot be interpreted to exclude petitioner from its benefits without further consideration of the function she performs and its impact on interstate commerce. We think that the present petitioner is employed by the respondent in interstate commerce within the meaning of the 1939 amendment to § 1. Although the amendment may have been prompted by a specific desire to obviate certain court-made rules limiting coverage, the language used goes far beyond that narrow objective. It evinces a purpose to expand coverage substantially as well as to avoid narrow distinctions in deciding questions of coverage. Under the amendment, it is the “duties” of the employee that must further or affect commerce, and it is enough if “any part” of those duties has the requisite effect. The statute commands us to examine the purpose and effect of the employee’s function in the railroad’s interstate operation, without limitation to nonclerical employees or determination on the basis of the employee’s importance as an individual in the railroad’s organization. Here respondent railroad has chosen to arrange its operations so that repairs and construction anywhere within its system which require blueprints must go through its Philadelphia office. No such work can be done without recourse to the files of 325,000 original tracings in petitioner’s custody. Loss or misplacing of those tracings could promptly cause delay, confusion, or worse in the day-to-day operation of respondent’s lines. If all employees who perform petitioner’s duties were removed from service, respondent could not conduct its operations without a change in its organizational system. To recognize this is to attribute to petitioner neither an exaggerated nor an attenuated relationship to respondent’s transportation system. The filing of tracings and the dispatch of blueprints taken from them comprise a direct link in the maintenance of respondent’s lines and rolling stock. Together with the makers of blueprints, petitioner constitutes the means by which men throughout respondent’s system obtain the information they must have to maintain the railroad’s trains, equipment, track, and structures. The very purpose of petitioner’s job is to further physical maintenance of an interstate railroad system. Proper performance of her duties makes an obvious contribution to the maintenance of that system. We hold that the petitioner, by the performance of her duties, is furthering the interstate transportation in which the respondent is engaged. “The word ‘furtherance’ is a comprehensive term. Its periphery may be vague, but admittedly it is both large and elastic.” Shelton v. Thomson, 148 F. 2d 1, 3. Petitioner’s duties here come within the confines of that concept. Similarly, those duties which “in any way directly or closely and substantially affect” interstate commerce in the railroad industry must necessarily be marked out through the process of case-by-case adjudication. This definition and the “furtherance” definition of employment in interstate commerce in the 1939 amendment are set forth in the disjunctive. In some situations they may overlap. Here we hold that, for the reasons already given, performance of petitioner’s duties has a' close and substantial effect upon the operation of respondent’s interstate activities. Cf. Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., 318 U. S. 125. Petitioner’s duties brought her within the coverage of § 1 as amended, and the District Court therefore had jurisdiction over this suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. Reversed. Mr. Justice Burton dissents for the reasons stated below in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns the scope of 18 U. S. C. §3501, the statute governing the admissibility of confessions in federal prosecutions. Respondent contends that § 3501(c), which provides that a custodial confession made by a person within six hours following his arrest “shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing such person” before a federal magistrate, rendered inadmissible the custodial statement he made more than six hours after his arrest on state criminal charges. We conclude, however, that § 3501(c) does not apply to statements made by a person who is being held solely on state charges. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I On Friday, August 5, 1988, officers of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department obtained a warrant to search respondent’s residence for heroin and other evidence of narcotics distribution. While executing the warrant later that day, the officers discovered not only narcotics, but $2,260 in counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes. Respondent was arrested and booked on state felony narcotics charges at approximately 5:40 p.m. He spent the weekend in custody. On Monday morning, August 8, the Sheriff’s Department informed the United States Secret Service of the counterfeit currency found in respondent’s residence. Two Secret Service agents arrived at the Sheriff’s Department shortly before midday to take possession of the currency and to interview respondent. Using a deputy sheriff as an interpreter, the agents informed respondent of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). After waiving these rights, respondent admitted that he had known that the currency was counterfeit. The agents arrested respondent shortly thereafter, took him to the Secret Service field office for booking, and prepared a criminal complaint. Due to congestion in the Federal Magistrate’s docket, respondent was not presented on the federal complaint until the following day. Respondent was indicted for unlawful possession of counterfeit currency in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 472. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the statement he had made during his interview with the Secret Service agents. He argued that his confession was made without a voluntary and knowing waiver of his Miranda rights, and that the delay between his arrest on state charges and his presentment on the federal charge rendered his confession inadmissible under 18 U. S. C. § 3501(c). The District Court rejected both contentions and denied the motion. Respondent subsequently was convicted after a jury trial at which the statement was admitted into evidence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the conviction. 975 F. 2d 1396 (1992). The court first outlined the exclusionary rule developed by this Court in a line of cases including McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332 (1943), and Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449 (1957). The so-called McNabb-Mallory rule, adopted by this Court “[i]n the exercise of its supervisory authority over the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts,” McNabb, supra, at 341, generally rendered inadmissible confessions made during periods of detention that violated the prompt presentment requirement of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Mallory, supra, at 453. Rule 5(a) provides that a person arrested for a federal offense shall be taken “without unnecessary delay” before the nearest federal magistrate, or before a state or local judicial officer authorized to set bail for federal offenses under 18 U. S. C. § 3041, for a first appearance, or presentment. The Ninth Circuit went on to discuss the interrelated provisions of 18 U. S. C. § 3501 and the decisions of the Courts of Appeals that have sought to discern the extent to which this statute curtailed the McNabb-Mallory rule. Section 3501(a), the court observed, states that a confession “shall be admitted in evidence” if voluntarily made, and § 3501(b) lists several nonexclusive factors that the trial judge should consider when making the voluntariness determination, including “the time elapsing between arrest and arraignment of the defendant making the confession, if it was made after arrest and before arraignment.” Section 3501(c) provides that a confession made by a person within six hours following his arrest or other detention “shall not be inadmissible” solely because of delay in presenting the person to a federal magistrate. The Ninth Circuit construed § 3501(c) as precluding suppression under McNabb-Mallory of any confession made during this “safe harbor” period following arrest. 975 F. 2d, at 1399. The court then reasoned that, by negative implication, § 3501(c) must in some circumstances allow suppression of a confession made more than six hours after arrest solely on the basis of pre-presentment delay, “regardless of the voluntariness of the confession.” Id., at 1401. The court thus concluded that the McNabb-Mallory rule, in either a pure or slightly modified form, applies to confessions made after the expiration of the safe harbor period. Turning to the facts of the case before it, the court determined that § 3501(c) applied to respondent’s statement because respondent was in custody and had not been presented to a magistrate at the time of the interview. The court concluded that the statement fell outside the subsection’s safe harbor because it was not made until Monday afternoon, nearly three days after respondent’s arrest on state charges. 975 F. 2d, at 1405, and n. 8 (citing United States v. Fouche, 776 F. 2d 1398, 1406 (CA9 1985)). Because the statement was not made within the § 3501(c) safe harbor period, the court applied both its pure and modified versions of the McNabb-Mallory rule and held that, under either approach, the confession should have been suppressed. 975 F. 2d, at 1405-1406. We granted the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari in order to consider the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of §3501. 510 U. S. 912 (1993). II The parties argue at some length over the proper interpretation of subsections (a) and (c) of 18 U. S. C. §3501, and, in particular, over the question whether § 3501(c) requires suppression of a confession that is made by an arrestee prior to presentment and more than six hours after arrest, regardless of whether the confession was voluntarily made. The Government contends that through §3501, Congress repudiated the McNabb-Mallory rule in its entirety. Under this theory, § 3501(c) creates a safe harbor that prohibits suppression on grounds of pre-presentment delay if a confession is made within six hours following arrest, but says nothing about the admissibility of a confession given beyond that 6-hour period. The admissibility of such a confession, the Government argues, is controlled by § 3501(a), which provides that voluntary confessions “shall be admitted in evidence.” Largely agreeing with the Ninth Circuit, respondent contends that § 3501(c) codified a limited form of the McNabbMallory rule — one that requires the suppression of a confession made before presentment but after the expiration of the safe harbor period. A contrary interpretation of § 3501(c), respondent argues, would render that subsection meaningless in the face of § 3501(a). As the parties recognize, however, we need not address subtle questions of statutory construction concerning the safe harbor set out in § 3501(c), or resolve any tension between the provisions of that subsection and those of § 3501(a), if we determine that the terms of § 3501(c) were never triggered in this case. We turn, then, to that threshold inquiry. When interpreting a statute, we look first and foremost to its text. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253-254 (1992). Section 3501(c) provides that in any federal criminal prosecution, “a confession made or given by a person who is a defendant therein, while such person was under arrest or other detention in the custody of any law-enforcement officer or law-enforcement agency, shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing such person before a magistrate or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States or of the District of Columbia if such confession is found by the trial judge to have been made voluntarily and if... such confession was made or given by such person within six hours immediately following his arrest or other detention.” Respondent contends that he was under “arrest or other detention” for purposes of § 3501(c) during the interview at the Sheriff’s Department, and that his statement to the Secret Service agents constituted a confession governed by this subsection. In respondent’s view, it is irrelevant that he was in the custody of the local authorities, rather than that of the federal agents, when he made the statement. Because the statute applies to persons in the custody of “any” law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency, respondent suggests that the § 3501(c) 6-hour time period begins to run whenever a person is arrested by local, state, or federal officers. We believe respondent errs in placing dispositive weight on the broad statutory reference to “any” law enforcement officer or agency without considering the rest of the statute. Section 3501(c) provides that, if certain conditions are met, a confession made by a person under “arrest or other detention” shall not be inadmissible in a subsequent federal prosecution “solely because of delay in bringing such person before a magistrate or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States or of the District of Columbia.” 18 U. S. C. § 3501(c) (emphasis added). Clearly, the terms of the subsection can apply only when there is some “delay” in presentment. Because “delay” is not defined in the statute, we must construe the term “in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U. S. 471,476 (1994). To delay is “[t]o postpone until a later time” or to “put off an action”; a delay is a “postponement.” American Heritage Dictionary 493 (3d ed. 1992). The term presumes an obligation to act. Thus, there can be no “delay” in bringing a person before a federal magistrate until, at a minimum, there is some obligation to bring the person before such a judicial officer in the first place. Plainly, a duty to present a person to a federal magistrate does not arise until the person has been arrested for a federal offense. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 5(a) (requiring initial appearance before a federal magistrate). Until a person is arrested or detained for a federal crime, there is no duty, obligation, or reason to bring him before a judicial officer “empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States,” and therefore, no “delay” under § 3501(c) can occur. In short, it is evident “from the context in which [the phrase] is used,” Deal v. United States, 508 U. S. 129, 132 (1993), that the “arrest or other detention” of which the subsection speaks must be an “arrest or other detention” for a violation of federal law. If a person is arrested and held on a federal charge by “any” law enforcement officer — federal, state, or local — that person is under “arrest or other detention” for purposes of § 3501(c) and its 6-hour safe harbor period. If, instead, the person is arrested and held on state charges, § 3501(c) does not apply, and the safe harbor is not implicated. This is true even if the arresting officers (who, when the arrest is for a violation of state law, almost certainly will be agents of the State or one of its subdivisions) believe or have cause to believe that the person also may have violated federal law. Such a belief, which may not be uncommon given that many activities are criminalized under both state and federal law, does not alter the underlying basis for the arrest and subsequent custody. As long as a person is arrested and held only on state charges by state or local authorities, the provisions of § 3501(c) are not triggered. In this case, respondent was under arrest on state narcotics charges at the time he made his inculpatory statement to the Secret Service agents. The terms of § 3501(c) thus did not come into play until respondent was arrested by the agents on a federal charge — after he made the statement. Because respondent’s statement was made voluntarily, as the District Court found, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 45a, nothing in § 3501 authorized its suppression. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 3501(a), (d). The State’s failure to arraign or prosecute respondent does not alter this conclusion. Although Congress could have provided that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the State in this scenario retroactively transforms time spent in the custody of state or local officers into time spent under “arrest or other detention” for purposes of § 3501(e), it did not do so in the statute as written. Cf. Ger-main, 503 U. S., at 253-254. Although we think proper application of § 3501(c) will be as straightforward in most cases as it is here, the parties identify one presumably rare scenario that might present some potential for confusion; namely, the situation that would arise if state or local authorities, acting in collusion with federal officers, were to arrest and detain someone in order to allow the federal agents to interrogate him in violation of his right to a prompt federal presentment. Long before the enactment of §3501, we held that a confession obtained during such a period of detention must be suppressed if the defendant could demonstrate the existence of improper collaboration between federal and state or local officers. See Anderson v. United States, 318 U. S. 350 (1943). In this case, however, we need not address §350rs effect, if any, on the rule announced in Anderson. The District Court concluded that there was “no evidence” that a “collusive arrangement between state and federal agents . .. caused [respondent’s] confession to be made,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a, and we see no reason to disturb that factual finding. It is true that the Sheriff’s Department informed the Secret Service agents that counterfeit currency had been found in respondent’s possession, but such routine cooperation between local and federal authorities is, by itself, wholly unobjectionable: “Only by such an interchange of information can society be adequately protected against crime.” United States v. Coppola, 281 F. 2d 340, 344 (CA2 1960) (en banc), aff’d, 365 U. S. 762 (1961). Cf. Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121, 123 (1959). Ill For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. So ordered. For reasons that are not apparent from the record, respondent was never arraigned or prosecuted by the State of California on the state drug charges. Title 18 U. S. C. §3501 provides: “(a) In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States or by the District of Columbia, a confession, as defined in subsection (e) hereof, shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given. Before such confession is received in evidence, the trial judge shall, out of the presence of the jury, determine any issue as to voluntariness. If the trial judge determines that the confession was voluntarily made it shall be admitted in evidence .... “(b) The trial judge in determining the issue of voluntariness shall take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the giving of the confession, including (1) the time elapsing between arrest and arraignment of the defendant making the confession, if it was made after arrest and before arraignment.... “The presence or absence of any of the above-mentioned factors to be taken into consideration by the judge need not be conclusive on the issue of voluntariness of the confession. “(c) In any criminal prosecution by the United States or by the District of Columbia, a confession made or given by a person who is a defendant therein, while such person was under arrest or other detention in the custody of any law-enforcement officer or law-enforcement agency, shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing such person before a magistrate or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States or of the District of Columbia if such confession is found by the trial judge to have been made voluntarily and if the weight to be given the confession is left to the jury and if such confession was made or given by such person within six hours immediately following his arrest or other detention: Provided, That the time limitation contained in this subsection shall not apply in any case in which the delay in bringing such person before such magistrate or other officer beyond such six-hour period is found by .the trial judge to be reasonable considering the means of transportation and the distance to be traveled to the nearest available such magistrate or other officer. “(d) Nothing contained in this section shall bar the admission in evidence of any confession made or given voluntarily by any person to any other person without interrogation by anyone, or at any time at which the person who made or gave such confession was not under arrest or other detention. “(e) As used in this section, the term ‘confession’ means any confession of guilt of any criminal offense or any self-incriminating statement made or given orally or in writing.” As we observed in Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449 (1957), Rule 5(a) is part of “[t]he scheme for initiating a federal prosecution.” Id., at 454 (emphasis added). In Anderson, a local sheriff, acting without authority under state law, arrested several men suspected of dynamiting federally owned power lines during the course of a labor dispute and allowed them to be interrogated for several days by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Only after the suspects made confessions were they arrested by the federal agents and arraigned before a United States Commissioner. We held the confessions to be inadmissible as the “improperly” secured product of an impermissible “working arrangement” between state and federal officers. 318 U. S., at 356. Respondent urges that the judgment below should be affirmed on an alternative ground. Although he was initially arrested on state charges on a Friday afternoon and held in local custody until Monday afternoon, respondent was not brought before a magistrate during this period. In County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44, 57 (1991), we held that the Fourth Amendment generally requires a judicial determination of probable cause within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. Relying on McLaughlin and Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975), respondent now asserts that his confession was obtained during an ongoing violation of his Fourth Amendment right to a prompt determination of probable cause. Respondent, however, did not raise a Fourth Amendment claim in the District Court or the Court of Appeals; he argued for suppression based only on the Fifth Amendment and § 3501. Finding no exceptional circumstances that would warrant reviewing a claim that was waived below, we adhere to our general practice and decline to address respondent’s Fourth Amendment argument. See Granfinanciera, S. A v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, 38-39 (1989); Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U. S. 458, 468-469, n. 12 (1983). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires us to determine the circumstances under which a social club, in calculating its liability for federal income tax, may offset losses incurred in selling food and drink to nonmembers against the income realized from its investments. I Petitioner Portland Golf Club is a nonprofit Oregon corporation, most of whose income is exempt from federal income tax under § 501(c)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 501(c)(7). Since 1914 petitioner has owned and operated a private golf and country club with a golf course, restaurant and bar, swimming pool, and tennis courts. The great part of petitioner’s income is derived from membership dues and other receipts from the club’s members; that income is exempt from tax. Portland Golf also has two sources of nonexempt “unrelated business taxable income”: sales of food and drink to nonmembers, and return on its investments. The present controversy centers on Portland Golf’s federal income tax liability for its fiscal years ended September 30, 1980, and September 30, 1981, respectively. Petitioner received investment income in the form of interest in the amount of $11,752 for fiscal 1980 and in the amount of $21,414 for fiscal 1981. App. 18. It sustained net losses of $28,433 for fiscal 1980 and $69,608 for fiscal 1981 on sales of food and drink to nonmembers. Petitioner offset these losses against the earnings from its investments and therefore reported no unrelated business taxable income for the two tax years. In computing these losses, petitioner identified two different categories of expenses incurred in selling food and drink to nonmembers. First, petitioner incurred variable (or direct) expenses, such as the cost of food, which varied depending on the amount of food and beverages sold (and therefore would not have been incurred had no sales to nonmembers been made). For each year in question, petitioner’s gross income from nonmember sales exceeded these variable costs. Petitioner also included as an unrelated business expense a portion of the fixed (or indirect) overhead expenses of the club — expenses which would have been incurred whether or not petitioner had made sales to nonmembers. In determining what portions of its fixed expenses were attributable to nonmember sales, petitioner employed an allocation formula, described as the “gross-to-gross method,” based on the ratio that nonmember sales bore to total sales. When fixed expenses, so calculated, were added to petitioner’s variable costs, the total exceeded Portland Golf’s gross income from nonmember sales. On audit, the Commissioner took the position that petitioner could deduct expenses associated with nonmember sales up to the amount of receipts from the sales themselves, but that it could not use losses from those activities to offset its investment income. The Commissioner based that conclusion on the belief that a profit motive was required if losses from these activities were to be used to offset income from other sources, and that Portland Golf had failed to show that its sales to nonmembers were undertaken with an intent to profit. The Commissioner therefore determined deficiencies of $1,828 for 1980 and $3,470 for 1981; these deficiencies reflected tax owed on petitioner’s investment income. App. 48-51. Portland Golf sought redetermination in the Tax Court. That court ruled in petitioner’s favor. 55 TCM 212 (1988), ¶ 88,076 P-H Memo TC. The court assumed, without deciding, that losses incurred in the course of sales to nonmembers could be used to offset other nonexempt income only if the sales were undertaken with an intent to profit. The court, however, held that Portland Golf had adequately demonstrated a profit motive, since its gross receipts from sales to nonmembers consistently exceeded the variable costs associated with those activities. The court therefore held that “petitioner is entitled to offset its unrelated business taxable income from interest by its loss from its nonmember food and beverage sales computed by allocating a portion of its fixed expenses to the nonmember food and beverage sales activity in a manner which respondent agrees is acceptable.” Id., at 217, ¶ 88,076 P-H Memo TC, at 413. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded. App. to Pet. for Cert, la, judgt. order reported at 876 F. 2d 897 (1989). The Court of Appeals held that the Tax Court had applied an incorrect legal standard in determining that Portland Golf had demonstrated an intent to profit from sales to nonmembers. The appellate court relied on its decision in North Ridge Country Club v. Commissioner, 877 F. 2d 750 (1989), where it had ruled that a social club “can properly deduct losses from a non-member activity only if it undertakes that activity with the intent to profit, where profit means the production of gains in excess of all direct and indirect costs.” Id., at 756. The same court in the present case concluded: “Because Portland Golf Club could have reported gains in excess of direct and indirect costs, but did not do so, relying on a method of allocation stipulated to be reasonable by the Commissioner, we REMAND this case to the tax court for a determination of whether Portland Golf Club engaged in its non-member activities with the intent required under North Ridge to deduct its losses from those activities.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a-3a. Because of a perceived conflict with the decision of the Sixth Circuit in Cleveland Athletic Club, Inc. v. United States, 779 F. 2d 1160 (1985), and because of the importance of the issue, we granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 1041 (1990). I — i I — i Virtually all tax-exempt business organizations are required to pay federal income tax on their “unrelated business taxable income.” The law governing social clubs, however, is significantly different from that governing other tax-exempt entities. As to exempt organizations other than social clubs, the Code defines “unrelated business taxable income” as “the gross income derived by any organization from any unrelated trade or business (as defined in section 513) regularly carried on by it, less the deductions allowed by this chapter which are directly connected with the carrying on of such trade or business.” 26 U. S. C. § 512(a)(1). As to social clubs, however, “unrelated business taxable income” is defined as “the gross income (excluding any exempt function income), less the deductions allowed by this chapter which are directly connected with the production of the gross income (excluding exempt function income).” § 512(a)(3)(A). The salient point is that § 512(a)(1) (which applies to most exempt organizations) limits “unrelated business taxable income” to income derived from a “trade or business,” while § 512(a)(3)(A) (which applies to social clubs) contains no such limitation. Thus, a social club’s investment income is subject to federal income tax, while the investment income of most other exempt organizations is not. This distinction reflects the fact that a social club’s exemption from federal income tax has a justification fundamentally different from that which underlies the grant of tax exemptions to other nonprofit entities. For most such organizations, exemption from federal income tax is intended to encourage the provision of services that are deemed socially beneficial. Taxes are levied on “unrelated business income” only in order to prevent tax-exempt organizations from gaining an unfair advantage over competing commercial enterprises. See United States v. American College of Physi cians, 475 U. S. 834, 838 (1986) (“Congress perceived a need to restrain the unfair competition fostered by the tax laws”). Since Congress concluded that investors reaping tax-exempt income from passive sources would not be in competition with commercial businesses, it excluded from tax the investment income realized by exempt organizations. The exemption for social clubs rests on a totally different premise. Social clubs are exempted from tax not as a means of conferring tax advantages, but as a means of ensuring that the members are not subject to tax disadvantages as a consequence of their decision to pool their resources for the purchase of social or recreational services. The Senate Report accompanying the Tax Reform Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 536, explained that that purpose does not justify a tax exemption for income derived from investments: “Since the tax exemption for social clubs and other groups is designed to allow individuals to join together to provide recreational or social facilities or other benefits on a mutual basis, without tax consequences, the tax exemption operates properly only when the sources of income of the organization are limited to receipts from the membership. Under such circumstances, the individual is in substantially the same position as if he had spent his income on pleasure or recreation (or other benefits) without the intervening separate organization. However, where the organization receives income from sources outside the membership, such as income from investments . . . upon which no tax is paid, the membership receives a benefit not contemplated by the exemption in that untaxed dollars can be used by the organization to provide pleasure or recreation (or other benefits) to its membership. ... In such a case, the exemption is no longer simply allowing individuals to join together for recreation or pleasure without tax consequences. Rather, it is bestowing a substantial additional advantage to the members of the club by allowing tax-free dollars to be used for their personal recreational or pleasure purposes. The extension of the exemption to such investment income is, therefore, a distortion of its purpose.” S. Rep. No. 91-552, p. 71 (1969). In the Tax Reform Act of 1969, Congress extended the tax on “unrelated business income” to social clubs. As to these organizations, however, Congress defined “unrelated business taxable income” to include income derived from investments. Our review of the present case must therefore be informed by two central facts. First, Congress intended that the investment income of social clubs should be subject to federal tax, and indeed Congress devised a definition of “unrelated business taxable income” with that purpose in mind. Second, the statutory scheme for the taxation of social clubs was intended to achieve tax neutrality, not to provide these clubs a tax advantage: Even the exemption for income derived from members’ payments was designed to ensure that members are not disadvantaged as compared with persons who pursue recreation through private purchases rather than through the medium of an organization. h-i I — I Petitioner’s principal argument is that it may deduct losses incurred through sales to nonmembers without demonstrating that these sales were motivated by an intent to profit. In the alternative, petitioner contends (and the Tax Court agreed) that if the Code does impose a profit-motive requirement, then that requirement has been satisfied in this case. We address these arguments in turn. A We agree with the Commissioner and the Court of Appeals that petitioner may use losses incurred in sales to nonmem-; bers to offset investment income only if those sales were motivated by an intent to profit. The statute provides that, as to social clubs, “the term ‘unrelated business taxable income’ means the gross income (excluding any exempt function income), less the deductions allowed by this chapter which are directly connected with the production of the gross income (excluding exempt function income). ” § 512(a)(3)(A) (emphasis added). As petitioner concedes, the italicized language limits deductions from unrelated business income to expenses allowable as deductions under Chapter 1 of the Code. See Brief for Petitioner 21-22. In our view, the deductions claimed in this case — expenses for food, payroll, and overhead in excess of gross receipts from nonmember sales — are allowable, if at all, only under § 162 of the Code. See North Ridge Country Club v. Commissioner, 877 F. 2d, at 753; Brook, Inc. v. Commissioner, 799 F. 2d 833, 838 (CA2 1986). Section 162(a) provides a deduction for “all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business.” Although the statute does not expressly require that a “trade or business” must be carried on with an intent to profit, this Court has ruled that a taxpayer’s activities fall within the scope of § 162 only if an intent to profit has been shown. See Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U. S. 23, 35 (1987) (“[T]o be engaged in a [§ 162] trade or business, . . . the taxpayer’s primary purpose for engaging in the activity must be for income or profit”). Thus, the losses that Portland Golf incurred in selling food and drink to nonmembers will constitute “deductions allowed by this chapter” only if the club’s nonmember sales were performed with an intent to profit. We see no basis for dispensing with the profit-motive requirement in the present case. Indeed, such an exemption would be in considerable tension with the statutory scheme devised by Congress to govern the taxation of social clubs. Congress intended that the investment income of social clubs (unlike the investment income of most other exempt organizations) should be subject to the same tax consequences as the investment income of any other taxpayer. To allow such an offset for social clubs would run counter to the principle of tax neutrality which underlies the statutory scheme. Petitioner concedes that “[generally a profit motive is a necessary factor in determining whether an activity is a trade or business.” Brief for Petitioner 23. Petitioner contends, however, that by including receipts from sales to nonmembers within § 512(a)(3)(A)’s definition of “unrelated business taxable income,” the Code has defined nonmember sales as a “trade or business,” and has thereby obviated the need for an inquiry into the taxpayer’s intent to profit. We disagree. In our view, Congress’ use of the term “unrelated business taxable income” to describe all receipts other than payments from the members hardly manifests an intent to define as a “trade or business” activities otherwise outside the scope of § 162. Petitioner’s reading would render superfluous the words “allowed by this chapter” in § 512(a)(3)(A): If each taxable activity of a social club is “deemed” to be a trade or business, then all of the expenses “directly connected” with those activities would presumably be deductible. Moreover, Portland Golf’s interpretation ignores Congress’ general intent to tax the income of social clubs according to the same principles applicable to other taxpayers. We therefore conclude that petitioner may offset losses incurred in sales to nonmembers against investment income only if its nonmember sales are motivated by an intent to profit. B Losses from Portland Golf’s sales to nonmembers may be used to offset investment income only if those activities were undertaken with a profit motive — that is, an intent to generate receipts in excess of costs. The parties and the other courts in this case, however, have taken divergent positions as to the range of expenses that qualify as costs of the nonexempt activity and are to be considered in determining whether petitioner acted with the requisite profit motive. In the view of the Tax Court, petitioner’s profit motive was established by the fact that the club’s receipts from nonmember sales exceeded its variable costs. Since Portland Golf’s fixed costs, by definition, have been incurred even in the absence of sales to nonmembers, the Tax Court concluded that these costs should be disregarded in determining petitioner’s intent to profit. The Commissioner has taken no firm position as to the precise manner in which Portland Golf’s fixed costs are to be allocated between member and nonmember sales. Indeed, the Commissioner does not even insist that any portion of petitioner’s fixed costs must be attributed to nonmember activities in determining intent to profit. He does insist, however, that the same allocation method is to be used in determining petitioner’s intent to profit as in computing its actual profit or loss. See Brief for Respondent 44-46. In the present case the parties have stipulated that the gross-to-gross method provides a reasonable formula for allocating fixed costs, and Portland Golf has used that method in calculating the losses incurred in selling food and drink to nonmembers. The Commissioner contends that petitioner is therefore required to demonstrate an intent to earn gross receipts in excess of fixed and variable costs, with the allocable share of fixed costs being determined by the gross-to-gross method. Although the Court of Appeals’ opinion is not entirely clear on this point, see n. 8, supra, that court seems to have taken a middle ground. The Court of Appeals expressly rejected the Tax Court’s assertion that profit motive could be established by a showing that gross receipts exceeded variable costs; the court insisted that some portion of fixed costs must be considered in determining intent to profit. The court appeared, however, to leave open the possibility that Portland Golf could use the gross-to-gross method in calculating its actual losses, while using some other allocation method to demonstrate that its sales to nonmembers were undertaken with a profit motive. We conclude that the Commissioner’s position is the correct one. Portland Golf’s argument rests, as the Commissioner puts it, on an “inherent contradiction.” Brief for Respondent 44. Petitioner’s calculation of actual losses rests on the claim that a portion of its fixed expenses is properly regarded as attributable to the production of income from nonmember sales. Given this assertion, we do not believe that these expenses can be ignored (or, more accurately, attributed to petitioner’s exempt activities) in determining whether petitioner acted with the requisite intent to profit. Essentially the same criticism applies to the Court of Appeals’ approach. That court required petitioner to include some portion of fixed expenses in demonstrating its intent to profit, but it left open the possibility that petitioner could employ an allocation method different from that used in calculating its actual losses. Under that approach, some of petitioner’s fixed expenses could be attributed to exempt functions in determining intent to profit and to nonmember sales in establishing the club’s actual loss. This, like the rationale of the Tax Court, seems to us to rest on an “inherent contradiction.” Petitioner’s principal response is that § 162 requires an intent to earn an economic profit, and that this is quite different from an intent to earn taxable income. Portland Golf emphasizes that numerous provisions of the Code establish deductions and preferences which do not purport to mirror economic reality. Therefore, petitioner argues, taxpayers may frequently act with an intent to profit, even though the foreseeable (and, indeed, the intended) result of their efforts is that they suffer (or achieve) tax losses. Much of the Code, in petitioner’s view, would be rendered a nullity if the mere fact of tax losses sufficed to show that a taxpayer lacked an intent to profit, thereby rendering the deductions unavailable. In Portland Golf’s view, the parties have stipulated only that the gross-to-gross formula provides a reasonable method of determining what portion of fixed expenses is “directly connected” with the nonexempt activity for purposes of computing taxable income. That stipulation, Portland Golf contends, is irrelevant in determining the portion of fixed expenses that represents the actual economic cost of the activity in question. We accept petitioner’s contention that § 162 requires only an intent to earn an economic profit. We acknowledge, moreover, that many Code provisions are designed to serve purposes (such as encouragement of certain types of investment) other than the accurate measurement of economic income. A taxpayer who takes advantage of deductions or preferences of that kind may establish an intent to profit even though he has no expectation of realizing taxable income. The fixed expenses that Portland Golf seeks to allocate to its nonmember sales, however, are deductions of a different kind. The Code does not state that fixed costs are allocable on a gross-to-gross basis irrespective of economic reality. Rather, petitioner’s right to use the gross-to-gross method rests on the club’s assertion that this allocation formula reasonably identifies those expenses that are “directly connected” to the nonmember sales, § 512(a)(3)(A), and are “the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred” in selling food and drink to nonmembers, see § 162(a). Language such as this, it seems to us, reflects an attempt to measure economic income — not an effort to use the tax law to serve ancillary purposes. Having calculated its actual losses on the basis of the gross-to-gross formula, petitioner is therefore foreclosed from attempting to demonstrate its intent to profit by arguing that some other allocation method more accurately reflects economic reality. IV We hold that any losses incurred as a result of petitioner’s nonmember sales may be offset against its investment income only if the nonmember sales were undertaken with an intent to profit. We also conclude that in demonstrating the requisite profit motive, Portland Golf must employ the same method of allocating fixed expenses as it uses in calculating its actual loss. Petitioner has failed to show that it intended to earn gross income from nonmember sales in excess of its total (fixed plus variable) costs, where fixed expenses are allocated using the gross-to-gross method. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed. It is so ordered. Section 501(c)(7) grants an exemption from federal income tax to “[c]lubs organized for pleasure, recreation, and other nonprofitable purposes, substantially all of the activities of which are for such purposes and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder.” Section 511 of the Code provides that the “unrelated business taxable income” of an exempt organization shall be taxed at the ordinary corporate rate. The term “unrelated business taxable income,” as applied to the income of a club such as petitioner, is defined in § 512(a)(3)(A). That definition encompasses all sources of income except receipts from the club’s members. For 1980, gross receipts from nonmember sales in the bar and dining room totaled $84,422, while variable expenses were $61,821. For 1981, gross receipts totaled $106,547, while variable expenses were $78,407. App. 85. For example, if 10% of petitioner’s gross receipts were derived from nonmember sales, 10% of petitioner’s fixed costs would be allocated to the nonexempt activity. That method of allocation appears rather generous to Portland Golf. The club charges nonmembers higher prices for food and drink than members are charged, even though nonmembers' meals presumably cost no more to prepare and serve. It therefore seems likely that the gross-to-gross method overstates the percentage of fixed costs properly attributable to nonmember sales. The parties, however, stipulated that this allocation method was reasonable. Id., at 17. The following table shows petitioner’s losses when fixed costs are allocated using the gross-to-gross method: 1980 1981 Gross income $84,422 $106,547 Variable expenses (61,821) (78,407) Allocated fixed expenses (51,034) (97,748) Net loss ($28,433) ($69,608) It is of interest to note that if petitioner’s fixed costs had been allocated using an alternative formula, known as the “square foot and hours of actual use” method, see id., at 29, its gross receipts exceeded the sum of variable and allocated fixed costs for both years: 1980 1981 Gross income $84,422 $106,547 Variable expenses (61,821) (78,407) Allocated fixed expenses (3,153) (4,666) Net profit $19,448 $23,474 The general rule under the Code is that losses incurred in a profit-seeking venture may be deducted from unrelated income; expenses of a not-for-profit activity may be offset against the income from that activity, but losses may not be applied against income from other sources. See 1 B. Bittker & L. Lokken, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts ¶¶20.1.2, 22.5.4, pp. 20-6, 22-63 to 22-64 (2d ed. 1989). The Tax Court stated that Portland Golf “did intend to make a profit, and did make a profit between the amount received from sales to nonmembers and the costs related to those sales which would not have been incurred absent those sales.” 55 TCM, at 216, 188,076 P-H Memo TC, at 416. The Tax Court, in articulating this standard for determining whether intent to profit had been shown, relied on its earlier reviewed decision in North Ridge Country Club v. Commissioner, 89 T. C. 563 (1987). That decision subsequently was reversed. 877 F. 2d 750 (CA9 1989). The basis for the Court of Appeals’ remand order is not entirely clear to us. It appears, however, that the court left open the possibility that petitioner could establish its intent to profit by using some other method of allocating fixed costs (such as the “actual use” method, see n. 5, supra), while continuing to use the gross-to-gross formula in computing actual losses. Both parties interpret the Court of Appeals’ decision in this manner, and both express disapproval of that approach. See Brief for Respondent 47, n. 25 (“[T]his argument is untenable”); Brief for Petitioner 48 (“While the Ninth Circuit’s formula is better than that of the Government, it is basically unprincipled”). Our disposition of the case makes unnecessary precise interpretation of the Court of Appeals’ opinion. See also Brook, Inc. v. Commissioner, 799 F. 2d 833 (CA2 1986); Rev. Rui. 81-69, 1981-1 Cum. Bull. 351-352; A. Scialabba, The Unrelated Business Taxable Income of Social Clubs, 10 Campbell L. Rev. 249 (1988). Section 513(a) defines “unrelated trade or business” as “any trade or business the conduct of which is not substantially related ... to the exercise or performance by such organization of its charitable, educational, or other purpose or function constituting the basis for its exemption.” Section 512(a)(3)(B) defines “exempt function income” as “the gross income from dues, fees, charges, or similar amounts paid by members of the organization as consideration for providing such members or their dependents or guests goods, facilities, or services in furtherance of the purposes constituting the basis for the exemption of the organization to which such income is paid.” See S. Rep. No. 2375, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 28 (1950) (“The problem at which the tax on unrelated business income is directed is primarily that of unfair competition. The tax-free status of [these] organizations enables them to use their profits tax-free to expand operations, while their competitors can expand only with the profits remaining after taxes”); H. R. Rep. No. 2319, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 36 (1950). The tax on “unrelated business income” was added to the Code by the Revenue Act of 1950, ch. 994, 64 Stat. 906. See S. Rep. No. 2375, at 30-31; H. R. Rep. No. 2319, at 38. Portland Golf appears to concede this point, too. See Brief for Petitioner 10 (“The parties agree that all of the expenses in issue . . . are the types of corporate expenses allowed as deductions by Code Section 162”). Petitioner does not identify any other Code provision which would serve as a basis for the deduction claimed in this case. Section 183 of the Code permits a taxpayer to offset expenses incurred in a not-for-profit activity against income from that activity up to the amount of the income. Even before the enactment of § 183, moreover, the courts and the Commissioner had not required that revenues earned in activities showing a net loss be declared as taxable income. See 1 Bittker & Lokken, n. 6, supra, ¶22.5.4, p. 22-63. Although § 183 is inapplicable to a nonprofit corporation such as Portland Golf, the Commissioner has followed longstanding tax principles in permitting the deduction of expenses incurred in nonmember sales up to the amount of petitioner’s receipts. See Brief for Respondent 33. At issue in this case is petitioner's right to offset losses from nonmember sales against income from unrelated investments. The Code distinguishes a social club’s “exempt function income” from its “unrelated business taxable income” by looking to the source of the payment: “[EJxempt function income” is limited to money received from the members. § 512(a)(3)(B). However, a social club could easily organize events whose primary purpose was to benefit the membership, yet arrange for nonmembers to make modest contributions toward the cost of the events. Those contributions would constitute “unrelated business taxable income”; but if losses incurred in such activities could be used to offset investment income, it would be relatively easy for clubs to avoid taxation on their investments. The general rule that losses incurred in a not-for-profit activity may not be used to offset unrelated income rests on the recognition that one who incurs expenses without an intent to profit presumably derives some intrinsic pleasure or benefit from the activity. The Code’s limitation on deductibility (expenses may be deducted up to, but not above, the gross income produced by the activity) reflects the view that taxpayers should not be allowed to deduct what are, in essence, personal expenses simply because the activity in question generates some receipts. Just as an individual taxpayer may not offset personal expenses against income from other sources, a social club should not be allowed to deduct expenses incurred for the benefit of the membership from unrelated business income. The parties stipulated that the gross-to-gross formula was a reasonable method of allocating fixed expenses. App. 17. In his brief to this Court, however, the Commissioner states: “There may be room to debate whether the fixed costs allocated by petitioner to its nonmember sales constitute true economic costs of that activity that ought to be treated as ‘directly connected’ to the production of the nonmember sales income. It might be argued that only the variable costs are ‘directly connected with’ the nonmember activity, and therefore that only those variable costs should offset the gross receipts from the nonmember income." Brief for Respondent 45, n. 24. See n. 8, supra. The Tax Court noted that petitioner would have shown a profit on sales to nonmembers in both 1980 and 1981 if fixed costs had been allocated under the “actual use” method. See 55 TCM 212, 213 (1988), ¶ 88,076 P-H Memo TC 412, 413. The Tax Court consistently has held that the possibility of realizing tax benefits should be disregarded in determining whether an intent to earn an economic profit has been shown. (That is, the reduction in tax liability cannot itself be the “profit.”) See, e. g., Gefen v. Commissioner, 87 T. C. 1471, 1490 (1986) (“A transaction has economic substance and will be recognized for tax purposes if the transaction offers a reasonable opportunity for economic profit, that is, profit exclusive of tax benefits”); Seaman v. Commissioner, 84 T. C. 564, 588 (1985) (‘“[PJrofit' means economic profit, independent of tax savings”); Surloff v. Commissioner, 81 T. C. 210, 233 (1983) (same). Accord, Simon v. Commissioner, 830 F. 2d 499, 500 (CA3 1987). Portland Golf does not dispute this principle. See Brief for Petitioner 39 (“The cases have uniformly held that taxable businesses, in order to deduct expenses in excess of income, need only show an ‘economic profit’ independent of tax savings, or ‘economic gain’ independent of tax savings”) (footnotes omitted). We therefore assume, without deciding, that potential reductions in tax liability are irrelevant to the determination whether a profit motive exists. As stated earlier, § 512(a)(3)(A) limits deductions from unrelated business taxable income to “deductions allowed by this chapter.” In the present case, petitioner may offset losses from nonmember sales against investment income only if those losses are deductible under § 162. That Code provision states: “There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business.” Thus, the expenses petitioner seeks to deduct will constitute “deductions allowed by this chapter” only if they are “the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred” in selling food and drink to nonmembers. We do not hold that, for other cases, any particular method of allocating fixed expenses must be used by social clubs. We hold only that the allocation method used in determining actual profit or loss must also be used in determining whether the taxpayer acted with a profit motive. Petitioner here has stipulated, however, to the reasonableness of the gross-to-gross method and has used that method in calculating its actual losses. We note that no other allocation method, used consistently, would have produced a result more favorable to petitioner. Had petitioner employed the actual-use method, or ignored fixed costs entirely, it could have established its intent to profit, but it would have realized a net gain from nonmember sales and its “unrelated business taxable income” would have been higher. The fact that petitioner suffered actual losses in 1980 and 1981 does not, by itself, prove that Portland Golf lacked a profit motive. A taxpayer's intent to profit is not disproved simply because no profit is realized during a particular year. See Treas. Reg. § 1.183 — l(c)(l)(ii), 26 CFR § 1.183 — l(c)(l)(ii) (1989) (most activities presumed to be engaged in for profit if gross income exceeds costs in any two of five consecutive years); Treas. Reg. § 1.183-2(b)(6), 26 CFR § L183-2(b)(6) (1989) (“A series of losses during the initial or start-up stage of an activity may not necessarily be an indication that the activity is not engaged in for profit"). Petitioner could offset these losses against investment income if it could demonstrate that it intended to earn gross income in excess of total costs, with fixed expenses being allocated under the gross-to-gross formula. Portland Golf has not asserted, however, that it possessed such a motive. The club’s reluctance to make that argument is understandable: In every year from 1975 through 1984, petitioner incurred losses from its sales to nonmembers when fixed costs are allocated on a gross-to-gross basis. 55 TCM, at 213. *88,076 P-H Memo TC, at 413. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

L

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. This is yet another case that concerns the standard for summary judgment in an antitrust controversy. The principal issue here is whether a defendant’s lack of market power in the primary equipment market precludes — as a matter of law — the possibility of market power in derivative aftermarkets. Petitioner Eastman Kodak Company manufactures and sells photocopiers and micrographic equipment. Kodak also sells service and replacement parts for its equipment. Respondents are 18 independent service organizations (ISO’s) that in the early 1980’s began servicing Kodak copying and micrographic equipment. Kodak subsequently adopted policies to limit the availability of parts to ISO’s and to make it more difficult for ISO’s to compete with Kodak in servicing Kodak equipment. Respondents instituted this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Kodak’s policies were unlawful under both § 1 and § 2 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1 and 2 (1988 ed., Supp. II). After truncated discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment for Kodak. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The appellate court found that respondents had presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue concerning Kodak’s market power in the service and parts markets. It rejected Kodak’s contention that lack of market power in service and parts must be assumed when such power is absent in the equipment market. Because of the importance of the issue, we granted certiorari. 501 U. S. 1216 (1991). I A Because this case comes to us on petitioner Kodak’s motion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of [respondents] is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [their] favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 255 (1986); Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574, 587 (1986). Mindful that respondents’ version of any disputed issue of fact thus is presumed correct, wé begin with the factual basis of respondents’ claims. See Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U. S. 332, 339 (1982). Kodak manufactures and sells complex business machines — as relevant here, high-volume photocopiers and mi-crographic equipment. Kodak equipment is unique; micro-graphic software programs that operate on Kodak machines, for example, are not compatible with competitors’ machines. See App. 424-425, 487-489, 537. Kodak parts are not compatible with other manufacturers’ equipment, and vice versa. See id., at 432,413-415. Kodak equipment, although expensive when new, has little resale value. See id., at 358-359, 424-425, 427-428, 467, 505-506, 519-521. Kodak provides service and parts for its machines to its customers. It produces some of the parts itself; the rest are made to order for Kodak by independent original-equipment manufacturers (OEM’s). See id., at 429, 465, 490, 496. Kodak does not sell a complete system of original equipment, lifetime service, and lifetime parts for a single price. Instead, Kodak provides service after the initial warranty period either through annual service contracts, which include all necessary parts, or on a per-call basis. See id., at 98-99; Brief for Petitioner 3. It charges, through negotiations and bidding, different prices for equipment, service, and parts for different customers. See App. 420-421, 536. Kodak provides 80% to 95% of the service for Kodak machines. See id., at 430. Beginning in the early 1980’s, ISO’s began repairing and servicing Kodak equipment. They also sold parts and reconditioned and sold used Kodak equipment. Their customers were federal, state, and local government agencies, banks, insurance companies, industrial enterprises, and providers of specialized copy and microfilming services. See id., at 417, 419-421, 492-493, 499, 516, 539. ISO’s provide service at a price substantially lower than Kodak does. See id., at 414, 451, 453-454, 469, 474-475, 488, 493, 536-537; Lodging 133. Some customers found that the ISO service was of higher quality. See App. 425-426, 537-538. Some ISO customers purchase their own parts and hire ISO’s only for service. See Lodging 144-147. Others choose ISO’s to supply both service and parts. See id., at 133. ISO’s keep an inventory of parts, purchased from Kodak or other sources, primarily the OEM’s. See App. 99, 415-416, 490. In 1985 and 1986, Kodak implemented a policy of selling replacement parts for micrographic and copying machines only to buyers of Kodak equipment who use Kodak service or repair their own machines. See Brief for Petitioner 6; App. 91-92, 98-100, 140-141, 171-172, 190, 442-447, 455-456, 483-484. As part of the same policy, Kodak sought to limit ISO access to other sources of Kodak parts. Kodak and the OEM’s agreed that the OEM’s would not sell parts that fit Kodak equipment to anyone other than Kodak. See id., at 417, 428-429, 447, 468, 474, 496. Kodak also, pressured Kodak equipment owners and independent parts distributors not to sell Kodak parts to ISO’s. See id., at 419-420, 428-429, 483-484, 517-518, 589-590. In addition, Kodak took steps to restrict the availability of used machines. See id., at 427-428, 465-466, 510-511, 520. Kodak intended, through these policies, to make it more difficult for ISO’s to sell service for Kodak machines. See id., at 106-107, 171, 516. It succeeded. ISO’s were unable to obtain parts from reliable sources, see id., at 429, 468, 496, and many were forced out of business, while others lost substantial revenue. See id., at 422, 458-459, 464, 468, 475-477, 482-484, 495-496, 501, 521. Customers were forced to switch to Kodak service even though they preferred ISO service. See id., at 420-422. B In 1987, the ISO’s filed the present action in the District Court, alleging, inter alia, that Kodak had unlawfully tied the sale of service for Kodak machines to the sale of parts, in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, and had unlawfully monopolized and attempted to monopolize the sale of service for Kodak machines, in violation of §2 of that Act. Kodak filed a motion for summary judgment before respondents had initiated discovery. The District Court permitted respondents to file one set of interrogatories and one set of requests for production of documents and to take six depositions. Without a hearing, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Kodak. App. to Pet. for Cert. 29B. As to the § 1 claim, the court found that respondents had provided no evidence of a tying arrangement between Kodak equipment and service or parts. See id., at 32B-33B. The court, however, did not address respondents’ § 1 claim that is at issue here. Respondents allege a tying arrangement not between Kodak equipment and service, but between Kodak parts and service. As to the § 2 claim, the District Court concluded that although Kodak had a “natural monopoly over the market for parts it sells under its name,” a unilateral refusal to sell those parts to ISO’s did not violate § 2. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, by a divided vote, reversed. 903 F. 2d 612 (1990). With respect to the § 1 claim, the court first found that whether service and parts were distinct markets and whether a tying arrangement existed between them were disputed issues of fact. Id., at 616-616. Having found that a tying arrangement might exist, the Court of Appeals considered a question not decided by the District Court: Was there “an issue of material fact as to whether Kodak has sufficient economic power in the tying product market [parts] to restrain competition appreciably in the tied product market [service].” Id., at 616. The court agreed with Kodak that competition in the equipment market might prevent Kodak from possessing power in the parts market, but refused to uphold the District Court’s grant of summary judgment “on this theoretical basis” because “market imperfections can keep economic theories about how consumers will act from mirroring reality.” Id., at 617. Noting that the District Court had not considered the market power issue, and that the record was not fully developed through discovery, the court declined to require respondents to conduct market analysis or to pinpoint specific imperfections in order to withstand summary judgment. “It is enough that [respondents] have presented evidence of actual events from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that... competition in the [equipment] market does not, in reality, curb Kodak’s power in the parts market.” Ibid. The court then considered the three business justifications Kodak proffered for its restrictive parts policy: (1) to guard against inadequate service, (2) to lower inventory costs, and (3) to prevent ISO’s from free-riding on Kodak’s investment in the copier and micrographic industry. The court concluded that the trier of fact might find the product quality and inventory reasons to be pretextual and that there was a less restrictive alternative for achieving Kodak’s quality-related goals. Id., at 618-619. The court also found Kodak’s third justification, preventing ISO’s from profiting on Kodak’s investments in the equipment markets, legally insufficient. Id., at 619. As to the §2 claim, the Court of Appeals concluded that sufficient evidence existed to support a finding that Kodak’s implementation of its parts policy was “anticompetitive” and “exclusionary” and “involved a specific intent to monopolize.” Id., at 620. It held that the ISO’s had come forward with sufficient evidence, for summary judgment purposes, to disprove Kodak’s business justifications. Ibid. The dissent in the Court of Appeals, with respect to the § 1 claim, accepted Kodak’s argument that evidence of competition in the equipment market “necessarily precludes power in the derivative market.” Id., at 622 (emphasis in original). With respect to the § 2 monopolization claim, the dissent concluded that, entirely apart from market power considerations, Kodak was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of its first business justification because it had “submitted extensive and undisputed evidence of a marketing strategy based on high-quality service.” Id., at 623. II A tying arrangement is “an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier.” Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 5-6 (1958). Such an arrangement violates §1 of the Sherman Act if the seller has “appreciable economic power” in the tying product market and if the arrangement affects a substantial volume of commerce in the tied market. Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 394 U. S. 495, 503 (1969). Kodak did not dispute that its arrangement affects a substantial volume of interstate commerce. It, however, did challenge whether its activities constituted a “tying arrangement” and whether Kodak exercised “appreciable economic power” in the tying market. We consider these issues in turn. A For respondents to defeat a motion for summary judgment on their claim of a tying arrangement, a reasonable trier of fact must be able to find, first, that service and parts are two distinct products, and, second, that Kodak has tied the sale of the two products. For service and parts to be considered two distinct products, there must be sufficient consumer demand so that it is efficient for a firm to provide service separately from parts. Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U. S. 2, 21-22 (1984). Evidence in the record indicates that service and., parts have been sold separately in the past and still are sold separately to self-service equipment owners. Indeed, the development of the entire high-technology service industry is evidence of the efficiency of a separate market for service. Kodak insists that because there is no demand for parts separate from service, there cannot be separate markets for service and parts. Brief for Petitioner 15, n. 3. By that logic, we would be forced to conclude that there can never be separate markets, for example, for cameras and film, computers and software, or automobiles and tires. That is an assumption we are unwilling to make. “We have often found arrangements involving functionally linked products at least one of which is useless without the other to be prohibited tying devices.” Jefferson Parish, 466 U. S., at 19, n. 30. Kodak’s assertion also appears to be incorrect as a factual matter. At least some consumers would purchase service without parts, because some service does not require parts, and some consumers, those who self-service for example, would purchase parts without service. Enough doubt is cast on Kodak’s claim of a unified market that it should be resolved by the trier of fact. Finally, respondents have presented sufficient evidence of a tie between service and parts. The record indicates that Kodak would sell parts to third parties only if they agreed not to buy service from ISO’s. B Having found sufficient evidence of a tying arrangement, we consider the other necessary feature of an illegal tying arrangement: appreciable economic power in the tying market. Market power is the power “to force a purchaser to do something that he would not do in a competitive market.” Jefferson Parish, 466 U. S., at 14. It has been defined as “the ability of a single seller to raise price and restrict output.” Fortner, 394 U. S., at 503; United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U. S. 377, 391 (1956). The existence of such power ordinarily is inferred from the seller’s possession of a predominant share of the market. Jefferson Parish, 466 U. S., at 17; United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U. S. 563, 571 (1966); Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 611-613 (1953). 1 Respondents contend that Kodak has more than sufficient power in the parts market to force unwanted purchases of the tied market, service. Respondents provide evidence that certain parts are available exclusively through Kodak. Respondents also assert that Kodak has control over the availability of parts it does not manufacture. According to respondents’ evidence, Kodak has prohibited independent manufacturers from selling Kodak parts to ISO’s, pressured Kodak equipment owners and independent parts distributors to deny ISO’s the purchase of Kodak parts, and taken steps to restrict the availability of used machines. Respondents also allege that Kodak’s control over the parts market has excluded service competition, boosted service prices, and forced unwilling consumption of Kodak service. Respondents offer evidence that consumers have switched to Kodak service even though they preferred ISO service, that Kodak service was of higher price and lower quality than the preferred ISO service, and that ISO’s were driven out of business by Kodak’s policies. Under our prior precedents, this evidence would be sufficient to entitle respondents to a trial on their claim of market power. 2 Kodak counters that even if it concedes monopoly share of the relevant parts market, it cannot actually exercise the necessary market power for a Sherman Act violation. This is so, according to Kodak, because competition exists in the equipment market. Kodak argues that it could not have the ability to raise prices of service and parts above the level that would be charged in a competitive market because any increase in profits from a higher price in the aftermarkets at least would be offset by a corresponding loss in profits from lower equipment sales as consumers began purchasing equipment with more attractive service costs. Kodak does not present any actual data on the equipment, service, or parts markets. Instead, it urges the adoption of a substantive legal rule that “equipment competition precludes any finding of monopoly power in derivative aftermarkets.” Brief for Petitioner 33. Kodak argues that such a rule would satisfy its burden as the moving party of showing “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” on the market power issue. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c). Legal presumptions that rest on formalistic distinctions rather than actual market realities are generally disfavored in antitrust law. This Court has preferred to resolve antitrust claims on a case-by-case basis, focusing on the “particular facts disclosed by the record.” Maple Flooring Manufacturers Assn. v. United States, 268 U. S. 563, 579 (1925); Du Pont, 351 U. S., at 395, n. 22; Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U. S. 36, 70 (1977) (White, J., concurring in judgment). In determining the existence of market power, and specifically the “responsiveness of the sales of one product to price changes of the other,” Du Pont, 351 U. S., at 400; see also id., at 394-395, and 400-401, this Court has examined closely the economic reality of the market at issue. Kodak contends that there is no need to examine the facts when the issue is market power in the aftermarkets. A legal presumption against a finding of market power is warranted in this situation, according to Kodak, because the existence of market power in the service and parts markets absent power in the equipment market “simply makes no economic sense,” and the absence of a legal presumption would deter procompetitive behavior. Matsushita, 475 U. S., at 587; id., at 594-595. Kodak analogizes this case to Matsushita, where a group of American corporations that manufactured or sold consumer electronic products alleged that their 21 Japanese counterparts were engaging in a 20-year conspiracy to price below cost in the United States in the hope of expanding their market share sometime in the future. After several years of detailed discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. Id., at 577-582. Because the defendants had every incentive not to engage in the alleged conduct which required them to sustain losses for decades with no foreseeable profits, the Court found an “absence of any rational motive to conspire.” Id., at 597. In that context, the Court determined that the plaintiffs’ theory of predatory pricing made no practical sense, was “speculative,” and was not “reasonable.” Id., at 588, 590, 593, 595, 597. Accordingly, the Court held that a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the plaintiffs and that summary judgment would be appropriate against them unless they came forward with more persuasive evidence to support their theory. Id., at 587-588, 595-598. The Court’s requirement in Matsushita that the plaintiffs’ claims make economic sense did not introduce a special burden on plaintiffs facing summary judgment in antitrust cases. The Court did not hold that if the moving party enunciates any economic theory supporting its behavior, regardless of its accuracy in reflecting the actual market, it is entitled to summary judgment. Matsushita demands only that the nonmoving party’s inferences be reasonable in order to reach the jury, a requirement that was not invented, but merely articulated, in that decision. If the plaintiff’s theory is economically senseless, no reasonable jury could find in its favor, and summary judgment should be granted. Kodak, then, bears a substantial burden in showing that it is entitled to summary judgment. It must show that despite evidence of increased prices and excluded competition, an inference of market power is unreasonable. To determine whether Kodak has met that burden, we must unravel the factual assumptions underlying its proposed rule that lack of power in the equipment market necessarily precludes power in the aftermarkets. The extent to which one market prevents exploitation of another market depends on the extent to which consumers will change their consumption of one product in response to a price change in another, i. e., the “cross-elasticity of demand.” See Du Pont, 351 U. S., at 400; P. Areeda & L. Kaplow, Antitrust Analysis ¶ 342(c) (4th ed. 1988). Kodak’s proposed rule rests on a factual assumption about the cross-elasticity of demand in the equipment and aftermarkets: “If Kodak raised its parts or service prices above competitive levels, potential customers would simply stop buying Kodak equipment. Perhaps Kodak would be able to increase short term profits through such a strategy, but at a devastating cost to its long term interests.” Brief for Petitioner 12. Kodak argues that the Court should accept, as a matter of law, this “basic economic realit[y],” id., at 24, that competition in the equipment market necessarily prevents market power in the aftermarkets. Even if Kodak could not raise the price of service and parts one cent without losing equipment sales, that fact would not disprove market power in the aftermarkets. The sales of even a monopolist are reduced when it sells goods at a monopoly price, but the higher price more than compensates for the loss in sales. Areeda & Kaplow ¶¶ 112 and 340(a). Kodak’s claim that charging more for service and parts would be “a short-run game,” Brief for Petitioner 26, is based on the false dichotomy that there are only two prices that can be charged — a competitive price or a ruinous one. But there could easily be a middle, optimum price at which the increased revenues from the higher priced sales of service and parts would more than compensate for the lower revenues from lost equipment sales. The fact that the equipment market imposes a restraint on prices in the aftermarkets by no means disproves the existence of power in those markets. See Areeda & Kaplow ¶ 340(b) (“[T]he existence of significant substitution in the event of further price increases or even at the current price does not tell us whether the defendant already exercises significant market power”) (emphasis in original). Thus, contrary to Kodak’s assertion, there is no immutable physical law — no “basic economic reality” — insisting that competition in the equipment market cannot coexist with market power in the aftermarkets. We next consider the more narrowly drawn question: Does Kodak’s theory describe actual market behavior so accurately that respondents’ assertion of Kodak market power in the aftermarkets, if not impossible, is at least unreasonable? Cf. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574 (1986). To review Kodak’s theory, it contends that higher service prices will lead to a disastrous drop in equipment sales. Presumably, the theory’s corollary is to the effect that low service prices lead to a dramatic increase in equipment sales. According to the theory, one would have expected Kodak to take advantage of lower priced ISO service as an opportunity to expand equipment sales. Instead, Kodak adopted a restrictive sales policy consciously designed to eliminate the lower priced ISO service, an act that would be expected to devastate either Kodak’s equipment sales or Kodak’s faith in its theory. Yet, according to the record, it has done neither. Service prices have risen for Kodak customers, but there is no evidence or assertion that Kodak equipment sales have dropped. Kodak and the United States attempt to reconcile Kodak’s theory with the contrary actual results by describing a “marketing strategy of spreading over time the total cost to the buyer of Kodak equipment.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18; see also Brief for Petitioner 18. In other words, Kodak could charge subcompetitive prices for equipment and make up the difference with supracompetitive prices for service, resulting in an overall competitive price. This pricing strategy would provide an explanation for the theory’s descriptive failings — if Kodak in fact had adopted it. But'Kodak never has asserted that it prices its equipment or parts subcompetitively and recoups its profits through service. Instead, it claims that it prices its equipment comparably to its competitors and intends that both its equipment sales and service divisions be profitable. See App. 159-161, 170, 178, 188. Moreover, this hypothetical pricing strategy is inconsistent with Kodak’s policy toward its self-service customers. If Kodak were underpricing its equipment, hoping to lock in customers and recover its losses in the service market, it could not afford to sell customers parts without service. In sum, Kodak’s theory does not explain the actual market behavior revealed in the record; Respondents offer a forceful reason why Kodak’s theory, although perhaps intuitively appealing, may not accurately explain the behavior of the primary and derivative markets for complex durable goods: the existence of significant information and switching costs. These costs could create a less responsive connection between service and parts prices and equipment sales. For the service-market price to affect equipment demand, consumers must inform themselves of the total cost of the “package” — equipment, service, and parts — at the time, of purchase; that is, consumers must engage in accurate life-cycle pricing. Life-cycle pricing of complex, durable equipment is difficult and costly. In order to arrive at an accurate price, a consumer must acquire a substantial amount of raw data and undertake sophisticated analysis. The necessary information would include data on price, quality, and availability of products needed to operate, upgrade, or enhance the initial equipment, as well as service and repair costs, in-cludiftg estimates of breakdown frequency, nature of repairs, price of service and parts, length of “downtime,” and losses incurred from downtime. Much of this information is difficult — some of it impossible — to acquire at the time of purchase. During the life of a product, companies may change the service and parts prices, and develop products with more advanced features, a decreased need for repair, or new warranties. In addition, the information is likely to be customer specific; lifecycle costs will vary from customer to customer with the type of equipment, degrees of equipment use, and costs of downtime. Kodak acknowledges the cost of information, but suggests, again without evidentiary support, that customer information needs will be satisfied by competitors in the equipment markets. Brief for Petitioner 26, n. 11. It is a question of fact, however, whether competitors would provide the necessary information. A competitor in the equipment market may not have reliable information about the lifecycle costs of complex equipment it does not service or the needs of customers it does not serve. Even if competitors had the relevant information, it is not clear that their interests would be advanced by providing such information to consumers. See 2 P. Areeda & D. Turner, Antitrust Law ¶ 404b1 (1978). Moreover, even if consumers were capable of acquiring and processing the complex body of information, they may choose not to do so. Acquiring the information is expensive. If the costs of service are small relative to the equipment price, or if consumers are more concerned about equipment capabilities than service costs, they may not find it cost efficient to compile the information. Similarly, some consumers, such as the Federal Government, have purchasing systems that make it difficult to consider the complete cost of the “package” at the time of purchase. State and local governments often treat service as an operating expense and equipment as a capital expense, delegating each to a different department. These governmental entities do not lifecycle price, but rather choose the lowest price in each market. See Brief for National Association of State Purchasing Officials et al. as Amici Curiae; Brief for State of Ohio et al. as Amici Curiae; App. 429-430. As Kodak notes, there likely will be some large-volume, sophisticated purchasers who will undertake the comparative studies and insist, in return for their patronage, that Kodak charge them competitive lifecycle prices. Kodak contends that these knowledgeable customers will hold down the package price for all other customers. Brief for Petitioner 23, n. 9. There are reasons, however, to doubt that sophisticated purchasers will ensure that competitive prices are charged to unsophisticated purchasers, too. As an initial matter, if the number of sophisticated customers is relatively small, the amount of profits to be gained by supracompetitive pricing in the service market could make it profitable to let the knowledgeable consumers take their business elsewhere. More importantly, if a company is able to price discriminate between sophisticated and unsophisticated consumers, the sophisticated will be unable to prevent the exploitation of the uninformed. A seller could easily price discriminate by varying the equipment/parts/service package, developing different warranties, or offering price discounts on different components. Given the potentially high cost of information and the possibility that a seller may be able to price discriminate between knowledgeable and unsophisticated consumers, it makes little sense to assume, in the absence of any eviden-tiary support, that equipment-purchasing decisions are based on an accurate assessment of the total cost of equipment, service, and parts over the lifetime of the machine. Indeed, respondents have presented evidence that Kodak practices price discrimination by selling parts to customers who service their own equipment, but refusing to sell parts to customers who hire third-party service companies. Companies that have their own service staff are likely to be high-volume users, the same companies for whom it is most likely to be economically worthwhile to acquire the complex information needed for comparative lifecycle pricing. A second factor undermining Kodak’s claim that supracom-petitive prices in the service market lead to ruinous losses in equipment sales is the cost to current owners of switching to a different product. See Areeda & Turner ¶ 519a. If the cost of switching is high, consumers who already have purchased the equipment, and are thus “locked in,” will tolerate some level of service-price increases before changing equipment brands. Under this scenario, a seller profitably could maintain supracompetitive prices in the aftermarket if the switching costs were high relative to the increase in service prices, and the number of locked-in customers were high relative to the number of new purchasers. Moreover, if the seller can price discriminate between its lockéd-in customers and potential new customers, this strategy is even more likely to prove profitable. The seller could simply charge new customers below-marginal cost on the equipment and recoup the charges in service, or offer packages with lifetime warranties or long-term service agreements that are not available to locked-in customers. Respondents have offered evidence that the heavy initial outlay for Kodak equipment, combined with the required support material that works only with Kodak equipment, makes switching costs very high for existing Kodak customers. And Kodak’s own evidence confirms that it varies the package price of equipment/parts/service for different customers. In sum, there is a question of fact whether information costs and switching costs foil the simple assumption that the equipment and service markets act as pure complements to one another. We conclude, then, that Kodak has failed to demonstrate that respondents’ inference of market power in the service and parts markets is unreasonable, and that, consequently, Kodak is entitled to summary judgment. It is clearly reasonable to infer that Kodak has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets, since respondents offer direct evidence that Kodak did so. It is also plausible, as discussed above, to infer that Kodak chose to gain immediate profits by exerting that market power where locked-in customers, high information costs, and discriminatory pricing limited and perhaps eliminated any long-term loss. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to respondents, their allegations of market power “mak[e]... economic sense.” Cf. Matsushita, 475 U. S., at 587. Nor are we persuaded by Kodak’s contention that it is entitled to a legal presumption on the lack of market power because, as in Matsushita, there is a significant risk of deterring procompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs in Matsushita attempted to prove the antitrust conspiracy “through evidence of rebates and other price-cutting activities.” Id., at 594. Because cutting prices to increase business is “the very essence of competition,” the Court was concerned that mistaken inferences would be “especially costly” and would “chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect.” Ibid. See also Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U. S. 752, 763 (1984) (permitting inference of concerted action would “deter or penalize perfectly legitimate conduct”). But the facts in this case are just the opposite. The alleged conduct — higher service prices and market foreclosure — is facially anticompetitive and exactly the harm that antitrust laws aim to prevent. In this situation, Matsushita does not create any presumption in favor of summary judgment for the defendant. Kodak contends that, despite the appearance of anticom-petjtiveness, its behavior actually favors competition because its ability to pursue innovative marketing plans will allow it to compete more effectively in the equipment market. Brief for Petitioner 40-41. A pricing strategy based on lower equipment prices and higher aftermarket prices could enhance equipment sales by making it easier for the buyer to finance the initial purchase. It is undisputed that competition is enhanced when a firm is able to offer various marketing options, including bundling of support and maintenance service with the sale of equipment. Nor do such actions run afoul of the antitrust laws. But the procom-petitive effect of the specific conduct challenged here, eliminating all consumer parts and service options, is far less clear. We need not decide whether Kodak’s behavior has any pro-competitive effects and, if so, whether they outweigh the anticompetitive effects. We note only that Kodak’s service and parts policy is simply not one that appears always or almost always to enhance competition, and therefore to warrant a legal presumption without any evidence of its actual economic impact. In this case, when we weigh the risk of deterring procompetitive behavior by proceeding to trial against the risk that illegal behavior will go unpunished, the balance tips against summary judgment. Cf. Matsushita, 475 U. S., at 594-595. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Kodak has not met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). We therefore affirm the denial of summary judgment on respondents’ § 1 claim. ) — I H — I H-4 Respondents also claim that they have presented genuine issues for trial as to whether Kodak has monopolized, or attempted to monopolize, the service and parts markets in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. “The offense of monopoly under § 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.” United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U. S., at 570-571. A The existence of the first element, possession of monopoly power, is easily resolved. As has been noted, respondents have presented a tri Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue presented is whether the United States may-appeal in a criminal case from a midtrial ruling resulting in the exclusion of certain evidence and from a subsequently entered judgment of acquittal. Resolution of this issue depends on the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the somewhat unusual facts of this case. I Petitioner was indicted, along with several others, for violating 18 U. S. C. § 1955 (1976 ed.), which makes it a federal offense to conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of an “illegal gambling business.” § 1955 (a). Such a business is defined as one that is conducted by five or more persons in violation of the law of the place where the business is located and that operates for at least 30 days or earns at least $2,000 in any one day. § 1955 (b)(1). The single-count indictment here charged in relevant part that the defendants’ gambling business involved “accepting, recording and registering bets and wagers on a parimutual [sic] number pool and on the result of a trial and contest of skill, speed, and endurance of beast,” and that the business “was a violation of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to wit, M. G. L. A. Chapter 271, Section 17.” The Government’s evidence at trial showed the defendants to have been engaged primarily in horse betting and numbers betting. At the close of the Government’s case, petitioner’s counsel, who represented 8 of the 11 defendants, moved for a judgment of acquittal as to all of his clients. Joined by counsel for other defendants, he argued, inter alia, that the Government had failed to prove that there was a violation of the state statutory section as alleged in the indictment, since Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 271, § 17 (West 1970), as construed by the state courts, did not prohibit numbers betting but applied only to betting on “games of competition” such as horse races. The Government responded that “violation of the State law is a jurisdictional element of [the federal] statute” and that “not every [defendant] must be found to be violating this State law.” The District Court accepted the Government's theory and denied the defendants' motion, stating that “a defendant to be convicted must '[only] be found to have joined in [the illegal] enterprise in some way.” Petitioner’s counsel then sought clarification of whether “the numbers pool allegation [was] still in the case.” The court indicated that it was, because counsel had not presented any state-court authority for the proposition that § 17 did not include numbers betting. The court also expressed the view, however, that if petitioner’s counsel were correct, “we would have to exclude... all of the evidence that has to do with bets o[n] numbers.” The Government demurred, arguing that exclusion of the numbers evidence would “not necessarily follow” from acceptance of petitioner's theory. Taking his lead from the court, petitioner’s counsel next moved “to strike or limit the evidence.” The motion was denied. After the defendants had rested, the trial judge announced that he was reversing his earlier ruling on the motion to exclude evidence, because he had discovered a Massachusetts case holding that numbers betting was not prohibited by § 17, but only by § 7 of ch. 271. The court then struck all evidence of numbers betting, apparently because it believed such action to be required by the indictment’s failure to set forth the proper section. At this point counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal as to petitioner alone, arguing that there was no evidence of his connection with horse-betting activities. The Government did not disagree that the evidence was insufficient to show petitioner’s involvement with a horse-betting operation, but repeated its earlier argument relating to the “jurisdictional” nature of the state-law violation. The court rejected this contention, stating that the offense had “to be established in the terms that you [the Government] charged it, which was as a violation of § 17” and that petitioner had to be “connected with this operation, and by that I mean a horse operation.” The court concluded: “I don’t think you’ve done it.” It then granted petitioner’s motion for a judgment of acquittal and entered an order embodying this ruling later that day. The next day the Government moved the court to reconsider both “its ruling... striking... evidence concerning the operation of an illegal... numbers pool” and “its decision granting defendant Thomas Sanabria’s motion for judgement [sic] of acquittal.” Prompted by the Government’s arguments in support of reconsideration, the court asked defense counsel why he had not raised the objection to the indictment’s citation of § 17 earlier and what prejudice resulted to petitioner from the failure to cite the proper section. Counsel responded that the objection had not “ripened” until, at the end of the Government’s case, the court was asked to take judicial notice of § 17, and that he need not and did not allege actual prejudice. The court denied the motions to reconsider, but indicated that, had it granted the motion to restore the numbers evidence, it also would have vacated the judgment of acquittal. The case against the remaining 10 defendants went to the jury on a theory that the gambling business was engaged in horse betting; all were convicted. The Government filed a timely appeal “from [the] decision and order... excluding evidence and entering a judgment of acquittal... and... denying the Motion for Reconsideration/’ Conceding that there could be no review of the District Court’s ruling that there was insufficient evidence of petitioner’s involvement with horse betting, the Government sought a new trial on the portion of the indictment relating to numbers betting. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held first that it had jurisdiction of the appeal. Although the jurisdictional statute, 18 U. S. C. § 3731 (1976 ed.), by its terms authorizes the Government to appeal only from orders “dismissing an indictment... as to any one or more counts.” the word “count” was “interpret[ed]... to refer to any discrete basis for the imposition of criminal liability.” 548 F. 2d 1, 5 (1976). Viewing the horse-betting and numbers allegations as “discrete bas[es] of criminal liability” duplicitously joined in a single count, the court characterized the District Court’s action as a “dismissal” of the numbers “charge” and an acquittal for insufficient evidence on the horse-betting charge. Id., at 4-5, and n. 4. It concluded that § 3731 authorized an appeal from the “dismissal” of the numbers charge, “if the double jeopardy clause does not bar a future prosecution on this charge.” 548 F. 2d, at 5. Consistent with its above analysis, the court found that petitioner had voluntarily terminated the proceedings on the numbers portion of the count by moving, in effect, to dismiss it. Since the “dismissal” imported no ruling on petitioner’s “criminal liability as such,” and since petitioner’s motion was not attributable to “prosecutorial or judicial overreaching,” the court applied the rule permitting retrials after a prosecution is terminated by a defendant’s request for a mistrial. Id., at 7-8, citing United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S. 600 (1976). There being no double jeopardy bar to a new trial, the court went on to resolve the merits of the appeal in the Government’s favor. It held, based on an intervening First Circuit decision, that the District Court had erred in “dismissing” the numbers theory. Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal was “vacated” and the case “remanded so that the government may try defendant on that portion of the indictment that charges a violation of § 1955 based upon numbering [sic] activities.” 548 F. 2d, at 8. We granted certiorari, 433 U. S. 907 (1977), limiting our review to the related issues of appealability and double jeopardy. We now reverse. II In United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332 (1975), we found that the primary purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause was to prevent successive trials, and not Government appeals per se. Thus we held that, where an indictment is dismissed after a guilty verdict is rendered, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar an appeal since the verdict could simply be reinstated without a new trial if the Government were successful. That a new trial will follow upon a Government appeal does not necessarily forbid it, however, because in limited circumstances a second trial on the same offense is constitutionally permissible. Appealability in this case therefore turns on whether the new trial ordered by the court below would violate the command of the Fifth Amendment that no “person [shall] be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” In deciding whether a second trial is permissible here, we must immediately confront the fact that petitioner was acquitted on the indictment. That “ ‘ [a] verdict of acquittal... [may] not be reviewed... without putting [the defendant] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution,’ ” has recently been described as “the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.” United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S. 564, 571 (1977), quoting United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 671 (1896). The fhndamental nature of this rule is manifested by its explicit extension to situations where an acquittal is “based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation.” Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S. 141, 143 (1962); see Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 188 (1957). In Fong Foo the Court of Appeals held that the District Court had erred in various rulings and lacked power to direct a verdict of acquittal before the Government rested its case. We accepted the Court of Appeals’ holding that the District Court had erred, but nevertheless found that the Double Jeopardy Clause was “violated when the Court of Appeals set aside the judgment of acquittal and directed that petitioners be tried again for the same offense.” 369 U. S., at 143. Thus when a defendant has been acquitted at trial he may not be retried on the same offense, even if the legal rulings underlying the acquittal were erroneous. The Government does not take issue with these basic principles. Indeed, it concedes that the acquittal for insufficient evidence on what it refers to as the horse-betting theory of liability is unreviewable and bars a second trial on that charge. The disputed question, however, is whether a retrial on the numbers theory of liability would be on the “same offense” as that on which petitioner has been acquitted. The Government contends, in accordance with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, that the numbers theory was dismissed from the count before the judgment of acquittal was entered and therefore that petitioner was not acquitted of the numbers theory. Petitioner responds that the District Court did not “dismiss” anything but rather struck evidence and acquitted petitioner on the entire count; further, assuming arguendo that there was a “dismissal” of the numbers theory, he urges that a retrial on this theory would nevertheless be barred as a second trial on the same statutory offense. We first consider whether the Court of Appeals correctly characterized the District Court’s action as a “dismissal” of the numbers theory. A In the Government’s view, the numbers theory was “dismissed” from the case as effectively as if the Government had actually charged the crime in two counts and the District Court had dismissed the numbers count. The first difficulty this argument encounters is that the Government did not in fact charge this offense in two counts. Legal consequences ordinarily flow from what has actually happened, not from what a party might have done from the vantage of hindsight. See Central Tablet Mfg. Co. v. United States, 417 U. S. 673, 690 (1974). The precise manner in which an indictment is drawn cannot be ignored, because an important function of the indictment is to ensure that, “in case any other proceedings are taken against [the defendant] for a similar of-fence,... the record [will] sho[w] with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction.” Cochran v. United States, 157 U. S. 286, 290 (1895), quoted with approval in Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749, 764 (1962); Hagner v. United States, 285 U. S. 427, 431 (1932). With regard to the one count that was in fact charged, as to which petitioner has been at least formally acquitted, we are not persuaded that it is correct to characterize the trial court’s action as a “dismissal” of a discrete portion of the count. While form is not to be exalted over substance in determining the double jeopardy consequences of a ruling terminating a prosecution, Serfass v. United States, 420 U. S. 377, 392-393 (1975); United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S. 470, 478 n. 7 (1971); United States v. Goldman, 277 U. S. 229, 236 (1928), neither is it appropriate entirely to ignore the form of order entered by the trial court, see United States v. Barber, 219 U. S. 72, 78 (1911). Here the District Court issued only two orders, one excluding certain evidence and the other entering a judgment of acquittal on the single count charged. No language in the indictment was ordered to be stricken, compare United States v. Alberti, 568 F. 2d 617, 621 (CA2 1977), nor was the indictment amended. The judgment of acquittal was entered on the entire count and found petitioner not guilty of the crime of violating 18 U. S. C. § 1955 (1976 ed.), without specifying that it did so only with respect to one theory of liability: “The defendant having been set to the bar to be tried for the offense of unlawfully engaging in an illegal gambling business, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955 and 2, and the Court having allowed defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of government’s evidence, “It is hereby Ordered that the defendant Thomas Sanabria be, and he hereby is, acquitted of the offense charged, and it is further Ordered that the defendant Thomas Sanabria is hereby discharged to go without day.” The Government itself characterized the District Court’s ruling from which it sought to appeal as “a decision and order... excluding evidence and entering a judgment of acquittal.” Notice of Appeal.' Similar language appears in its motion for reconsideration filed in the District Court. Indeed, the view that the trial court “dismissed” as to one “discrete basis of liability” appears to have originated in the opinion below. Thus, not only defense counsel and the trial court but the Government as well seemed in agreement that the trial court had made an evidentiary ruling based on its interpretation of the indictment. We must assume that the trial court’s interpretation of the indictment was erroneous. See n. 13, supra. But not every erroneous interpretation of an. indictment for purposes of deciding what evidence is admissible can be regarded as a “dismissal.” Here the District Court did not find that the count failed to charge a necessary element of the offense, cf. Lee v. United States, 432 U. S. 23 (1977); rather, it found the indictment’s description of the offense too narrow to warrant the admission of certain evidence. To this extent, we believe the ruling below is properly to be characterized as an erroneous evidentiary ruling, which led to an acquittal for insufficient evidence. That judgment of acquittal, however erroneous, bars further prosecution on any aspect of the count and hence bars appellate review of the trial court’s error. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S., at 571; Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S. 141 (1962); Green v. United States, 355 U. S., at 188; United States v. Ball, 163 U. S., at 671. B Even if the Government were correct that the District Court “dismissed” the numbers allegation, in our view a retrial on that theory would subject petitioner to a second trial on the “same offense” of which he has been acquitted.' It is Congress, and not the prosecution, which establishes and defines offenses. Few, if any, limitations are imposed by the Double Jeopardy Clause on the legislative power to define offenses. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161, 165 (1977). But once Congress has defined a statutory offense by its prescription of the “allowable unit of prosecution,” United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 344 U. S. 218, 221 (1952); Bell v. United States, 349 U. S. 81 (1955); Braverman v. United States, 317 U. S. 49 (1942); In re Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176 (1889), that prescription determines the scope of protection afforded by a prior conviction or acquittal. Whether a particular course of conduct involves one or more distinct “offenses” under the statute depends on this congressional choice. The allowable unit of prosecution under § 1955 is defined as participation in a single “illegal gambling business.” Congress did not assimilate state gambling laws per se into' the federal penal code, nor did it define discrete acts of gambling as independent federal offenses. See H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, p. 53 (1970). See siso Iannelli v. United States, 420 U. S. 770, 784-790 (1975). The Government need not prove that the defendant himself performed any act of gambling prohibited by state law. It is participation in the gambling business that is a federal offense, and it is only the gambling business that must violate state law. And, as the Government recognizes, under § 1955 participation in a single gambling business is but a single offense, “no matter how many state statutes the enterprise violated.” Brief for United States 31. The Government’s undisputed theory of this case is that there was a single gambling business, which engaged in both horse betting and numbers betting. With regard to this single business, participation in which is concededly only a single offense, we have no doubt that petitioner was truly acquitted. We have recently defined an acquittal as “ 'a resolution, correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.’ ” Lee v. United States, 432 U. S., at 30 n. 8, quoting United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., supra, at 571. Petitioner was found not guilty for a failure of proof on a key “factual element of the offense charged”: that he was “connected with” the illegal gambling business. See supra, at 59.' Had the Government charged only that the business was engaged in horse betting and had petitioner been acquitted, his acquittal would bar any further prosecution for participating in the same gambling business during the same time period on a numbers theory. That the trial court disregarded the Government’s allegation of numbers betting does not render its acquittal on the horse-betting theory any less an acquittal on the “offense” charged. “The Double Jeopardy Clause is not such a fragile guarantee that... its limitations [can be avoided] by the simple expedient of dividing a single crime into a series of temporal or spatial units,” Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S., at 169, or, as we hold today, into “discrete bases of liability” not defined as such by the legislature. See id., at 169 n. 8. While recognizing that only a single violation of the statute is alleged under either theory, the Government nevertheless contends that separate counts would have been proper, and that an acquittal of petitioner on a horse-betting count would not bar another prosecution on a numbers count. Brief for United States 33. Although there may be circumstances in which this is true, petitioner here was acquitted for insufficient proof of an element of the crime which both such counts would share — that he was “connected with” the single gambling business. See supra, at 59. This finding of fact stands as an absolute bar to any further prosecution for participation in that business. The Government having charged only a single gambling business, the discrete violations of state law which that business may have committed are not severable in order to avoid the Double Jeopardy Clause’s bar on retrials for the “same offense.” Indeed, the Government’s argument that these are discrete bases of liability warranting reprosecution following a final judgment of acquittal on one such “discrete basis” is quite similar to an unsuccessful argument that it presented in Braverman v. United States, 317 U. S. 49 (1942). Braverman had been convicted of and received consecutive sentences on four separate counts of conspiracy, each count alleging a conspiracy to violate a separate substantive provision of the federal narcotics laws. The Government conceded that only a single conspiracy existed, as it concedes here that only a single gambling business existed; nonetheless, it urged that separate punishments were appropriate because the single conspiracy had several discrete objects. We firmly rejected that argument: “[T]he precise nature and extent of the conspiracy must be determined by reference to the agreement which embraces and defines its objects. Whether the object of a single agreement is to commit one or many crimes, it is in either case that agreement which constitutes the conspiracy which the statute punishes. The one agreement cannot be taken to be several agreements and hence several conspiracies because it envisages the violation of several statutes rather than one.” Id., at 53. The same reasoning must also apply where the essence of the crime created by Congress is participation in a “business,” rather than participation in an “agreement.” The Double Jeopardy Clause is no less offended because the Government here seeks to try petitioner twice for this single offense, instead of seeking to punish him twice as it did in Braverman. “If two offenses are the same... for purposes of barring consecutive sentences at a single trial, they necessarily will be the same for purposes of barring successive prosecutions.” Brown v. Ohio, supra, at 166. Accordingly, even if the numbers allegation were “dismissed,” we conclude that a subsequent trial of petitioner for conducting the same illegal gambling business as that at issue in the first trial would subject him to a second trial on the “same offense” of which he was acquitted. III The only question remaining is whether any of the exceptions to the constitutional rule forbidding successive trials on the same offense, see n. 15, supra, apply here. The short answer to this question is that there is no exception permitting retrial once the defendant has been acquitted, no matter how "egregiously erroneous,” Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S., at 143, the legal rulings leading to that judgment might be. The Government nevertheless argues, relying principally on Lee v. United States, 432 U. S. 23 (1977), and Jeffers v. United States, 432 U. S. 137 (1977), that petitioner waived his double jeopardy rights by moving to “dismiss” the numbers allegation and by not objecting to the form of the allegation prior to trial. In Lee we held a retrial permissible because the District Courtis midtrial decision granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense was “functionally indistinguishable from a declaration of mistrial” at the defendant’s request. 432 U. S., at 31. The mistrial analogy relied on in Lee is manifestly inapposite here. Although jeopardy had attached in Lee, no verdict had been rendered; indeed, petitioner conceded that “the District Court’s termination of the first trial was not an acquittal,” id., at 30 n. 8. Here, by contrast, the trial proceeded to verdict, and petitioner was acquitted. While in Lee the trial court clearly did contemplate a reprosecution when it granted defendant’s motion, id., at 30-31, neither petitioner’s motion here nor the trial court’s rulings contemplated a second trial — nor could they have, since only a single offense was involved and petitioner went to judgment on that offense. Where a trial terminates with a judgment of acquittal, as here, “double jeopardy principles governing the permissibility of retrial after a declaration of mistrial,” Lee v. United States, 432 U. S., at 31, have no bearing. Nor does Jeffers support the Government’s position. The defendant there was first tried and convicted of conspiring to distribute narcotics in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846. Eight Members of the Court agreed that his subsequent trial for conducting a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 848 during the same time period was on the “same offense,” since the § 846 violation was a lesser included offense to the § 848 violation. Prior to the first trial, however, Jeffers had specifically opposed the Government's effort to try both indictments together, in part on the ground that they involved distinct offenses. 432 U. S., at 144 n. 8. Reasoning that Jeffers necessarily contemplated a second trial, four Members of the Court found that he had “elect[ed] to have the two offenses tried separately,” id., at 152, and, by not raising the potential double jeopardy problem, had waived any objection on that ground to successive trials, id., at 152-154. The instant case presents quite a different situation. Petitioner’s counsel never argued that horse betting and numbers were distinct offenses, a fortiori did not argue for or contemplate separate trials on each theory, and a multo fortiori did not “elect” to undergo successive trials. Finally, we agree with the Court of Appeals that this case does not present the hypothetical situation on which we reserved judgment in Serfass v. United States, of “ ‘a defendant who is afforded an opportunity to obtain a determination of a legal defense prior to trial and nevertheless knowingly allows himself to be placed in jeopardy before raising the defense.’ ” 420 U. S., at 394, quoting Solicitor General; see 548 F. 2d, at 7. Petitioner did not have a “legal defense” to the single offense charged: participating in an illegal gambling business in violation of § 1955. Unlike questions of whether an indictment states an offense, a statute is unconstitutional, or conduct set forth in an indictment violates the statute, what proof may be presented in support of a valid indictment and the sufficiency of that proof are not “legal defenses” required to be or even capable of being resolved before trial. In all of the former instances, a ruling in the defendant’s favor completely precludes conviction, at least on that indictment. Here, even if the numbers language had been struck before trial, there was no “legal” reason why petitioner could not have been convicted on this indictment, as were his 10 codefendants. The acquittal resulted from the insufficiency of the Government’s proof at trial to establish petitioner’s connection with the gambling business, as the trial judge erroneously understood it to have been charged. The Government’s real quarrel is with the judgment of acquittal. While the numbers evidence was erroneously excluded, the judgment of acquittal produced thereby is final and unreviewable. Neither 18 U. S. C. § 3731 (1976 ed.) nor the Double Jeopardy Clause permits the Government to obtain relief from all of the adverse rulings — most of which result from defense motions — that lead to the termination of a criminal trial in the defendant's favor. See United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S., at 351-352; S. Rep. No. 91-1296, p. 2 (1970). To hold that a defendant waives his double jeopardy protection whenever a trial court error in his favor on a mid-trial motion leads to an acquittal would undercut the adversary assumption on which our system of criminal justice rests, see Jeffers v. United States, 432 U. S., at 159-160 (Stevens, J., dissenting in part and concurring in judgment in part), and would vitiate one of the fundamental rights established by the Fifth Amendment. The trial court's rulings here led to an erroneous resolution in the defendant’s favor on the merits of the charge. As Fong Foo v. United States makes clear, the Double Jeopardy Clause absolutely bars a second trial in such circumstances. The Court of Appeals thus lacked jurisdiction of the Government’s appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed. Mr. Justice White joins Parts I, II-A, and III of this opinion. Title 18 U. S. C. § 1955 (1976 ed.) provides in relevant part: “Prohibition of illegal gambling businesses. “(a) Whoever conducts, finances, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an illegal gambling business shall be fined not more than $20,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. “(b) As used in this section— “(1) ‘illegal gambling business’ means a gambling business which— “ (i) is a violation of the law of a State or political subdivision in which it is conducted; “(ii) involves five or more persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all ox part of such business; and “(iii) has been or remains in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days or has a gross revenue of $2,000 in any single day. “(2) ‘gambling’ includes but is not limited to pool-selling, bookmaking, maintaining slot machines, roulette wheels or dice tables, and conducting lotteries, policy, bolita or numbers games, or selling chances therein. “(3) ‘State’ means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.” The indictment alleged in full: “From on or about June 1, 1971 and continuing thereafter up to and including November 13, 1971 at Revere, Massachusetts within the District of Massachusetts, [the defendants] did unlawfully, knowingly, and wilfully conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all and a part of an illegal gambling business, to wit, accepting, recording and registering bets and wagers on a parimutual [sic] number pool and on the result of a trial and contest of skill, speed, and endurance of beast, said illegal gambling business; (i) was a violation of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to wit, M. G. L. A. Chapter 271, Section 17, in which place said gambling business was being conducted; (ii) involved five and more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all and a part of said business; (iii) had been in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of two thousand dollars ($2,000) in any single day; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955 and 2.” When the District Judge asked why exclusion of the numbers evidence “would not necessarily follow,” the Government responded: “Because the Defendants have been charged with operating a gambling business, which is in violation of State law. Now, there’s no question that the horse race aspect of it is in violation of State law. There are other aspects to the bets as well, but the violation of State law is merely a jurisdictional element which must be satisfied prior to the initiation of Federal prosecution.” Commonwealth v. Boyle, 346 Mass. 1, 189 N. E. 2d 844 (1963). The Government did not at this time argue, as it had previously, see n. 3, supra, that the numbers evidence was relevant to show “other aspects” of the bets even if it could not be used to prove that the business violated state law. Instead, it urged that the numbers evidence was admissible as proof of “similar acts.” Petitioner has consistently maintained that he properly moved to exclude the numbers evidence as irrelevant to the indictment’s characterization of the gambling business; that the District Court properly granted the evidentiary motion, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 12; and that the District Court properly granted petitioner’s motion for a judgment of acquittal after excluding the numbers evidence on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The text of the judgment is quoted infra, at 67. In support of these motions, the Government argued that the failure to cite Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 271, § 7 (West 1970), in the indictment was a technical defect causing no prejudice to the defendants and subject to correction during trial under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 7. See n. 11, infra. If the numbers evidence were restored to the case, the Government argued, vacating the judgment of acquittal would be proper, since it had resulted solely from the erroneous exclusion of evidence and since no new trial would be necessary in view of the fact that the jury had not been discharged. The trial court explained its reasoning as follows: “If the other motion had been granted, I think, probably, the Motion to Reconsider the Acquittal of Sanabria would be allowed under these new decisions: Wilson, which is in 420 US 332; Jenkins, 420 US 358; and Serfass at 420 US 377, all decided the last term. All of those seem to say if a judgment of acquittal or judgment of dismissal is entered on legal grounds as opposed to containing or importing a finding of fact and the reversal of that decision would not require a new trial, then-it may be reversed. “In Fong Foo [v. United States, 369 U. S. 141 (1962)] the jury had been discharged, and it would have been necessary to draw a new jury and start a new trial, and in Jenkins they specifically distinguished Fong Foo from the Wilson-Jenkins-Serfass group....” Another provision of § 3731 authorizes the Government to appeal from orders “suppressing or excluding evidence... not made after the defendant has been put in jeopardy and before the verdict or finding on [the] indictment.” The Government does not contend that the ruling excluding numbers evidence was appealable under this provision. By its plain terms, moreover, this second paragraph of § 3731 does not authorize this appeal, since the ruling excluding evidence occurred after the defendant had been put in jeopardy and before verdict. Cf. United States v. Morrison, 429 U. S. 1 (1976). United States v. Morrison, 531 F. 2d 1089, 1094, cert. denied, 429 U. S. 837 (1976). Morrison held a failure to cite Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 271, § 7 (West 1970), in a similarly worded indictment to be harmless error. Based on Morrison, the court below concluded that the indictment was sufficient to give “notice that numbers activity was a basis upon which the government sought to establish criminal liability under § 1955.” 548 F. 2d, at 4. The petition for certiorari was filed one day out of time. The time requirement of this Court’s Rule 22 (2) is not jurisdictional, Schacht v. United States, 398 U. S. 58, 63-65 Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. PER CURIAM. This case addresses the situation of an officer who-having arrived late at an ongoing police action and having witnessed shots being fired by one of several individuals in a house surrounded by other officers-shoots and kills an armed occupant of the house without first giving a warning. According to the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to respondents, shows the following. Respondent Daniel Pauly was involved in a road-rage incident on a highway near Santa Fe, New Mexico. 814 F.3d 1060, 1064-1065 (C.A.10 2016). It was in the evening, and it was raining. The two women involved called 911 to report Daniel as a " 'drunk driver' " who was " 'swerving all crazy.' " Id., at 1065. The women then followed Daniel down the highway, close behind him and with their bright lights on. Daniel, feeling threatened, pulled his truck over at an off-ramp to confront them. After a brief, nonviolent encounter, Daniel drove a short distance to a secluded house where he lived with his brother, Samuel Pauly. Sometime between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., Officer Kevin Truesdale was dispatched to respond to the women's 911 call. Truesdale, arriving after Daniel had already left the scene, interviewed the two women at the off-ramp. The women told Truesdale that Daniel had been driving recklessly and gave his license plate number to Truesdale. The state police dispatcher identified the plate as being registered to the Pauly brothers' address. After the women left, Officer Truesdale was joined at the off-ramp by Officers Ray White and Michael Mariscal. The three agreed there was insufficient probable cause to arrest Daniel. Still, the officers decided to speak with Daniel to (1) get his side of the story, (2) " 'make sure nothing else happened,' " and (3) find out if he was intoxicated. Id., at 1065. The officers split up. White stayed at the off-ramp in case Daniel returned. Truesdale and Mariscal drove in separate patrol cars to the Pauly brothers' address, less than a half mile away. Record 215. Neither officer turned on his flashing lights. When Officers Mariscal and Truesdale arrived at the address they had received from the dispatcher, they found two different houses, the first with no lights on inside and a second one behind it on a hill. Id., at 217, 246. Lights were on in the second one. The officers parked their cars near the first house. They examined a vehicle parked near that house but did not find Daniel's truck. Id., at 310. Officers Mariscal and Truesdale noticed the lights on in the second house and approached it in a covert manner to maintain officer safety. Both used their flashlights in an intermittent manner. Truesdale alone turned on his flashlight once they got close to the house's front door. Upon reaching the house, the officers found Daniel's pickup truck and spotted two men moving around inside the residence. Truesdale and Mariscal radioed White, who left the off-ramp to join them. At approximately 11 p.m., the Pauly brothers became aware of the officers' presence and yelled out " 'Who are you?' " and " 'What do you want?' " 814 F.3d, at 1066. In response, Officers Mariscal and Truesdale laughed and responded: " 'Hey, (expletive), we got you surrounded. Come out or we're coming in.' " Ibid. Truesdale shouted once: " 'Open the door, State Police, open the door.' " Ibid. Mariscal also yelled: " 'Open the door, open the door.' " Ibid. The Pauly brothers heard someone yelling, " 'We're coming in. We're coming in.' " Ibid . Neither Samuel nor Daniel heard the officers identify themselves as state police. Record 81-82. The brothers armed themselves, Samuel with a handgun and Daniel with a shotgun. One of the brothers yelled at the police officers that " 'We have guns.' " 814 F.3d, at 1066. The officers saw someone run to the back of the house, so Officer Truesdale positioned himself behind the house and shouted " 'Open the door, come outside.' " Ibid. Officer White had parked at the first house and was walking up to its front door when he heard shouting from the second house. He half-jogged, half-walked to the Paulys' house, arriving "just as one of the brothers said: 'We have guns.' " Ibid. ; see also Civ. No. 12-1311 (D NM, Feb. 5, 2014), App. to Pet. for Cert. 75-78. When White heard that statement, he drew his gun and took cover behind a stone wall 50 feet from the front of the house. Officer Mariscal took cover behind a pickup truck. Just "a few seconds" after the "We have guns" statement, Daniel stepped part way out of the back door and fired two shotgun blasts while screaming loudly. 814 F.3d, at 1066-1067. A few seconds after those shots, Samuel opened the front window and pointed a handgun in Officer White's direction. Officer Mariscal fired immediately at Samuel but missed. " 'Four to five seconds' " later, White shot and killed Samuel. Id., at 1067. The District Court denied the officers' motions for summary judgment, and the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the Paulys. Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ----, ----, n., 136 S.Ct. 305, 307, n., 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) (per curiam ). Because this case concerns the defense of qualified immunity, however, the Court considers only the facts that were knowable to the defendant officers. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2474, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015). Samuel's estate and Daniel filed suit against, inter alia, Officers Mariscal, Truesdale, and White. One of the claims was that the officers were liable under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violating Samuel's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. All three officers moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. White in particular argued that the Pauly brothers could not show that White's use of force violated the Fourth Amendment and, regardless, that Samuel's Fourth Amendment right to be free from deadly force under the circumstances of this case was not clearly established. The District Court denied qualified immunity. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. As to Officers Mariscal and Truesdale, the court held that "[a]ccepting as true plaintiffs' version of the facts, a reasonable person in the officers' position should have understood their conduct would cause Samuel and Daniel Pauly to defend their home and could result in the commission of deadly force against Samuel Pauly by Officer White." 814 F.3d, at 1076. The panel majority analyzed Officer White's claim separately from the other officers because "Officer White did not participate in the events leading up to the armed confrontation, nor was he there to hear the other officers ordering the brothers to 'Come out or we're coming in.' " Ibid. Despite the fact that "Officer White ... arrived late on the scene and heard only 'We have guns' ... before taking cover behind a stone wall," the majority held that a jury could have concluded that White's use of deadly force was not reasonable. Id., at 1077, 1082. The majority also decided that this rule-that a reasonable officer in White's position would believe that a warning was required despite the threat of serious harm-was clearly established at the time of Samuel's death. The Court of Appeals' ruling relied on general statements from this Court's case law that (1) "the reasonableness of an officer's use of force depends, in part, on whether the officer was in danger at the precise moment that he used force" and (2) "if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon[,] deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if[,] where feasible, some warning has been given." Id., at 1083 (citing, inter alia, Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), and Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) ; emphasis deleted; internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The court concluded that a reasonable officer in White's position would have known that, since the Paulys could not have shot him unless he moved from his position behind a stone wall, he could not have used deadly force without first warning Samuel Pauly to drop his weapon. Judge Moritz dissented, contending that the "majority impermissibly second-guesses" Officer White's quick choice to use deadly force. 814 F.3d, at 1084. Judge Moritz explained that the majority also erred by defining the clearly established law at too high a level of generality, in contravention of this Court's precedent. The officers petitioned for rehearing en banc, which 6 of the 12 judges on the Court of Appeals voted to grant. In a dissent from denial of rehearing, Judge Hartz noted that he was "unaware of any clearly established law that suggests ... that an officer ... who faces an occupant pointing a firearm in his direction must refrain from firing his weapon but, rather, must identify himself and shout a warning while pinned down, kneeling behind a rock wall." 817 F.3d 715, 718 (C.A.10 2016). Judge Hartz expressed his hope that "the Supreme Court can clarify the governing law." Id ., at 719. The officers petitioned for certiorari. The petition is now granted, and the judgment is vacated: Officer White did not violate clearly established law on the record described by the Court of Appeals panel. Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S., at ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct., at 308. While this Court's case law " 'do[es] not require a case directly on point' " for a right to be clearly established, " 'existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.' " Id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 308. In other words, immunity protects " 'all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Ibid. In the last five years, this Court has issued a number of opinions reversing federal courts in qualified immunity cases. See, e.g., City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. ----, ----, n. 3, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 1774, n. 3, 191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015) (collecting cases). The Court has found this necessary both because qualified immunity is important to " 'society as a whole,' " ibid., and because as " 'an immunity from suit,' " qualified immunity " 'is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial,' " Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). Today, it is again necessary to reiterate the longstanding principle that "clearly established law" should not be defined "at a high level of generality." Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011). As this Court explained decades ago, the clearly established law must be "particularized" to the facts of the case. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). Otherwise, "[p]laintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights." Id., at 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034. The panel majority misunderstood the "clearly established" analysis: It failed to identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances as Officer White was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment. Instead, the majority relied on Graham, Garner, and their Court of Appeals progeny, which-as noted above-lay out excessive-force principles at only a general level. Of course, "general statements of the law are not inherently incapable of giving fair and clear warning" to officers, United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 271, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997), but "in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent," Anderson v. Creighton, supra, at 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034. For that reason, we have held that Garner and Graham do not by themselves create clearly established law outside "an obvious case." Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199, 125 S.Ct. 596, 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004) (per curiam ); see also Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2023, 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014) (emphasizing that Garner and Graham "are 'cast at a high level of generality' "). This is not a case where it is obvious that there was a violation of clearly established law under Garner and Graham . Of note, the majority did not conclude that White's conduct-such as his failure to shout a warning-constituted a run-of-the-mill Fourth Amendment violation. Indeed, it recognized that "this case presents a unique set of facts and circumstances" in light of White's late arrival on the scene. 814 F.3d, at 1077. This alone should have been an important indication to the majority that White's conduct did not violate a "clearly established" right. Clearly established federal law does not prohibit a reasonable officer who arrives late to an ongoing police action in circumstances like this from assuming that proper procedures, such as officer identification, have already been followed. No settled Fourth Amendment principle requires that officer to second-guess the earlier steps already taken by his or her fellow officers in instances like the one White confronted here. On the record described by the Court of Appeals, Officer White did not violate clearly established law. The Court notes, however, that respondents contend Officer White arrived on the scene only two minutes after Officers Truesdale and Mariscal and more than three minutes before Daniel's shots were fired. On the assumption that the conduct of Officers Truesdale and Mariscal did not adequately alert the Paulys that they were police officers, respondents suggest that a reasonable jury could infer that White witnessed the other officers' deficient performance and should have realized that corrective action was necessary before using deadly force. Brief in Opposition 11, 22, n. 5. This Court expresses no position on this potential alternative ground for affirmance, as it appears that neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals panel addressed it. The Court also expresses no opinion on the question whether this ground was properly preserved or whether-in light of this Court's holding today-Officers Truesdale and Mariscal are entitled to qualified immunity. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for certiorari is granted; the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated; and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. This case poses the question whether a State’s use of highway sobriety checkpoints violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not and therefore reverse the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals of Michigan. Petitioners, the Michigan Department of State Police and its director, established a sobriety checkpoint pilot program in early 1986. The director appointed a Sobriety Checkpoint Advisory Committee comprising representatives of the State Police force, local police forces, state prosecutors, and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Pursuant to its charge, the advisory committee created guidelines setting forth procedures governing checkpoint operations, site selection, and publicity. Under the guidelines, checkpoints would be set up at selected sites along state roads. All vehicles passing through a checkpoint would be stopped and their drivers briefly examined for signs of intoxication. In cases where a checkpoint officer detected signs of intoxication, the motorist would be directed to a location out of the traffic flow where an officer would check the motorist’s driver’s license and car registration and, if warranted, conduct further sobriety tests. Should the field tests and the officer’s observations suggest that the driver was intoxicated, an arrest would be made. All other drivers would be permitted to resume their journey immediately. The first—and to date the only—sobriety checkpoint operated under the program was conducted in Saginaw County with the assistance of the Saginaw County Sheriff’s Department. During the 75-minute duration of the checkpoint’s operation, 126 vehicles passed through the checkpoint. The average delay for each vehicle was approximately 25 seconds. Two drivers were detained for field sobriety testing, and one of the two was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. A third driver who drove through without stopping was pulled over by an officer in an observation vehicle and arrested for driving under the influence. On the day before the operation of the Saginaw County checkpoint, respondents filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Wayne County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from potential subjection to the checkpoints. Each of the respondents “is a licensed driver in the State of Michigan . . . who regularly travels throughout the State in his automobile.” See Complaint, App. 3a-4a. During pretrial proceedings, petitioners agreed to delay further implementation of the checkpoint program pending the outcome of this litigation. After the trial, at which the court heard extensive testimony concerning, inter alia, the “effectiveness” of highway sobriety checkpoint programs, the court ruled that the Michigan program violated the Fourth Amendment and Art. 1, § 11, of the Michigan Constitution. App. to Pet. for Cert. 132a. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the holding that the program violated the Fourth Amendment and, for that reason, did not consider whether the program violated the Michigan Constitution. 170 Mich. App. 433, 445, 429 N. W. 2d 180, 185 (1988). After the Michigan Supreme Court denied petitioners’ application for leave to appeal, we granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 806 (1989). To decide this case the trial court performed a balancing test derived from our opinion in Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47 (1979). As described by the Court of Appeals, the test involved “balancing the state’s interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers, the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints in achieving that goal, and the level of intrusion on an individual’s privacy caused by the checkpoints.” 170 Mich. App., at 439, 429 N. W. 2d, at 182 (citing Brown, supra, at 50-51). The Court of Appeals agreed that “the Brown three-prong balancing test was the correct test to be used to determine the constitutionality of the sobriety checkpoint plan.” 170 Mich. App., at 439, 429 N. W. 2d, at 182. As characterized by the Court of Appeals, the trial court’s findings with respect to the balancing factors were that the State has “a grave and legitimate” interest in curbing drunken driving; that sobriety checkpoint programs are generally “ineffective” and, therefore, do not significantly further that interest; and that the checkpoints’ “subjective intrusion” on individual liberties is substantial. Id., at 439, 440, 429 N. W. 2d, at 183, 184. According to the court, the record disclosed no basis for disturbing the trial court’s findings, which were made within the context of an analytical framework prescribed by this Court for determining the constitutionality of seizures less intrusive than traditional arrests. Id., at 445, 429 N. W. 2d, at 185. In this Court respondents seek to defend the judgment in their favor by insisting that the balancing test derived from Brown v. Texas, supra, was not the proper method of analysis. Respondents maintain that the analysis must proceed from a basis of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and rely for support on language from our decision last Term in Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U. S. 656 (1989). We said in Von Raab: “[W]here a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves special governmental needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance the individual’s privacy expectations against the Government’s interests to determine whether it is impractical to require a warrant or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context.” Id., at 665-666. Respondents argue that there must be a showing of some special governmental need “beyond the normal need” for criminal law enforcement before a balancing analysis is appropriate, and that petitioners have demonstrated no such special need. But it is perfectly plain from a reading of Von Raab, which cited and discussed with approval our earlier decision in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 (1976), that it was in no way designed to repudiate our prior cases dealing with police stops of motorists on public highways. Martinez-Fuerte, supra, which utilized a balancing analysis in approving highway checkpoints for detecting illegal aliens, and Brown v. Texas, supra, are the relevant authorities here. Petitioners concede, correctly in our view, that a Fourth Amendment “seizure” occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. Tr. of Oral Arg. 11; see Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 556 (“It is agreed that checkpoint stops are ‘seizures’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment”); Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U. S. 593, 597 (1989) (Fourth Amendment seizure occurs “when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied” (emphasis in original)). The question thus becomes whether such seizures are “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. It is important to recognize what our inquiry is not about. No allegations are before us of unreasonable treatment of any person after an actual detention at a particular checkpoint. See Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S., at 559 (“[C]laim that a particular exercise of discretion in locating or operating a checkpoint is unreasonable is subject to post-stop judicial review”). As pursued in the lower courts, the instant action challenges only the use of sobriety checkpoints generally. We address only the initial stop of each motorist passing through a checkpoint and the associated preliminary questioning and observation by checkpoint officers. Detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard. Id., at 567. No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States’ interest in eradicating it. Media reports of alcohol-related death and mutilation on the Nation’s roads are legion. The anecdotal is confirmed by the statistical. “Drunk drivers cause an annual death toll of over 25,000 [ ] and in the same time span cause nearly one million personal injuries and more than five billion dollars in property damage.” 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.8(d), p. 71 (2d ed. 1987). For decades, this Court has “repeatedly lamented the tragedy.” South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U. S. 553, 558 (1983); see Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U. S. 432, 439 (1957) (“The increasing slaughter on our highways . . . now reaches the astounding figures only heard of on the battlefield”). Conversely, the weight bearing on the other scale—the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints—is slight. We reached a similar conclusion as to the intrusion on motorists subjected to a brief stop at a highway checkpoint for detecting illegal aliens. See Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 558. We see virtually no difference between the levels of intrusion on law-abiding motorists from the brief stops necessary to the effectuation of these two types of checkpoints, which to the average motorist would seem identical save for the nature of the questions the checkpoint officers might ask. The trial court and the Court of Appeals, thus, accurately gauged the “objective” intrusion, measured by the duration of the seizure and the intensity of the investigation, as minimal. See 170 Mich. App., at 444, 429 N. W. 2d, at 184. With respect to what it perceived to be the “subjective” intrusion on motorists, however, the Court of Appeals found such intrusion substantial. See supra, at 449. The court first affirmed the trial court's finding that the guidelines governing checkpoint operation minimize the discretion of the officers on the scene. But the court also agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the checkpoints have the potential to generate fear and surprise in motorists. This was so because the record failed to demonstrate that approaching motorists would be aware of their option to make U-turns or turnoffs to avoid the checkpoints. On that basis, the court deemed the subjective intrusion from the checkpoints unreasonable. Id., at 443-444, 429 N. W. 2d, at 184-185. We believe the Michigan courts misread our cases concerning the degree of “subjective intrusion” and the potential for generating fear and surprise. The “fear and surprise” to be considered are not the natural fear of one who has been drinking over the prospect of being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint but, rather, the fear and surprise engendered in law-abiding motorists by the nature of the stop. This was made clear in Martinez-Fuerte. Comparing checkpoint stops to roving patrol stops considered in prior cases, we said: “[W]e view checkpoint stops in a different light because the subjective intrusion—the generating of concern or even fright on the part of lawful travelers—is appreciably less in the case of a checkpoint stop. In [United States v.] Ortiz, [422 U. S. 891 (1975),] we noted: “‘[T]he circumstances surrounding a checkpoint stop and search are far less intrusive than those attending a roving-patrol stop. Roving patrols often operate at night on seldom-traveled roads, and their approach may frighten motorists. At traffic checkpoints the motorist can see that other vehicles are being stopped, he can see visible signs of the officers’ authority, and he is much less likely to be frightened or annoyed by the intrusion. 422 U. S., at 894-895.’” Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S., at 558. See also id, at 559. Here, checkpoints are selected pursuant to the guidelines, and uniformed police officers stop every approaching vehicle. The intrusion resulting from the brief stop at the sobriety checkpoint is for constitutional purposes indistinguishable from the checkpoint stops we upheld in Martinez-Fuerte. The Court of Appeals went on to consider as part of the balancing analysis the “effectiveness” of the proposed checkpoint program. Based on extensive testimony in the trial record, the court concluded that the checkpoint program failed the “effectiveness” part of the test, and that this failure materially discounted petitioners’ strong interest in implementing the program. We think the Court of Appeals was wrong on this point as well. The actual language from Brown v. Texas, upon which the Michigan courts based their evaluation of “effectiveness,” describes the balancing factor as “the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest.” 443 U. S., at 51. This passage from Brown was not meant to transfer from politically accountable officials to the courts the decision as to which among reasonable alternative law enforcement techniques should be employed to deal with a serious public danger. Experts in police science might disagree over which of several methods of apprehending drunken drivers is preferrable as an ideal. But for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, the choice among such reasonable alternatives remains with the governmental officials who have a unique understanding of, and a responsibility for, limited public resources, including a finite number of police officers. Brown’s rather general reference to “the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest” was derived, as the opinion makes clear, from the line of cases culminating in Martinez-Fuerte, supra. Neither Martinez-Fuerte nor Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648 (1979), however, the two cases cited by the Court of Appeals as providing the basis for its “effectiveness” review, see 170 Mich. App., at 442, 429 N. W. 2d, at 183, supports the searching examination of “effectiveness” undertaken by the Michigan court. In Delaware v. Prouse, supra, we disapproved random stops made by Delaware Highway Patrol officers in an effort to apprehend unlicensed drivers and unsafe vehicles. We observed that no empirical evidence indicated that such stops would be an effective means of promoting roadway safety and said that “[i]t seems common sense that the percentage of all drivers on the road who are driving without a license is very small and that the number of licensed drivers who will be stopped in order to find one unlicensed operator will be large indeed.” Id., at 659-660. We observed that the random stops involved the “kind of standardless and unconstrained discretion [which] is the evil the Court has discerned when in previous cases it has insisted that the discretion of the official in the field be circumscribed, at least to some extent.” Id., at 661. We went on to state that our holding did not “cast doubt on the permissibility of roadside truck weigh-stations and inspection checkpoints, at which some vehicles may be subject to further detention for safety and regulatory inspection than are others.” Id., at 663, n. 26. Unlike Prouse, this case involves neither a complete absence of empirical data nor a challenge to random highway stops. During the operation of the Saginaw County checkpoint, the detention of the 126 vehicles that entered the checkpoint resulted in the arrest of two drunken drivers. Stated as a percentage, approximately 1.6 percent of the drivers passing through the checkpoint were arrested for alcohol impairment. In addition, an expert witness testified at the trial that experience in other States demonstrated that, on the whole, sobriety checkpoints resulted in drunken driving arrests of around 1 percent of all motorists stopped. 170 Mich. App., at 441, 429 N. W. 2d, at 183. By way of comparison, the record from one of the consolidated cases in Martinez-Fuerte showed that in the associated checkpoint, illegal aliens were found in only 0.12 percent of the vehicles passing through the checkpoint. See 428 U. S., at 554. The ratio of illegal aliens detected to vehicles stopped (considering that on occasion two or more illegal aliens were found in a single vehicle) was approximately 0.5 percent. See ibid. We concluded that this “record . . . provides a rather complete picture of the effectiveness of the San Clemente checkpoint,” ibid., and we sustained its constitutionality. We see no justification for a different conclusion here. In sum, the balance of the State’s interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Statistical evidence incorporated in Justice Stevens’ dissent suggests that this figure declined between 1982 and 1988. See post, at 460-461, n. 2, and 467-468, n. 7 (citing U. S. Dept, of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatal Accident Reporting System 1988). It was during this same period that police departments experimented with sobriety checkpoint systems. Petitioners, for instance, operated their checkpoint in May 1986, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a, and the Maryland State Police checkpoint program, about which much testimony was given before the trial court, began in December 1982. See id, at 84a. Indeed, it is quite possible that jurisdictions which have recently decided to implement sobriety checkpoint systems have relied on such data from the 1980’s in assessing the likely utility of such checkpoints. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit attacking the Texas system of financing public education was initiated by Mexican-American parents whose children attend the elementary and secondary schools in the Edgewood Independent School District, an urban school district in San Antonio, Texas. They brought a class action on behalf of schoolchildren throughout the State who are members of minority groups or who are poor and reside in school districts having a low property tax base. Named as defendants were the State Board of Education, the Commissioner of Education, the State Attorney General, and the Bexar County (San Antonio) Board of Trustees. The complaint was filed in the summer of 1968 and a three-judge court was impaneled in January 1969. In December 1971 the panel rendered its judgment in a per curiam opinion holding the Texas school finance system unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State appealed, and we noted probable jurisdiction to consider the far-reaching constitutional questions presented. 406 U. S. 966 (1972). For the reasons stated in this opinion, we reverse the decision of the District Court. I The first Texas State Constitution, promulgated upon Texas’ entry into the Union in 1845, provided for the establishment of a system of free schools. Early in its history, Texas adopted a dual approach to the financing of its schools, relying on mutual participation by the local school districts and the State. As early as 1883, the state constitution was amended to provide for the creation of local school districts empowered to levy ad valorem taxes with the consent of local taxpayers for the “erection... of school buildings” and for the “further maintenance of public free schools.” Such local funds as were raised were supplemented by funds distributed to each district from the State’s Permanent and Available School Funds. The Permanent School Fund, its predecessor established in 1854 with $2,000,000 realized from an annexation settlement, was thereafter endowed with millions of acres of public land set aside to assure a continued source of income for school support. The Available School Fund, which received income from the Permanent School Fund as well as from a state ad valorem property tax and other designated taxes, served as the disbursing arm for most state educational funds throughout the late 1800’s and first half of this century. Additionally, in 1918 an increase in state property taxes was used to finance a program providing free textbooks throughout the State. Until recent times, Texas was a predominantly rural State and its population and property wealth were spread relatively evenly across the State. Sizable differences in the value of assessable property between local school districts became increasingly evident as the State became more industrialized and as rural-to-urban population shifts became more pronounced. The location of commercial and industrial property began to play a significant role in determining the amount of tax resources available to each school district. These growing disparities in population and taxable property between districts were responsible in part for increasingly notable differences in levels of local expenditure for education. In due time it became apparent to those concerned with financing public education that contributions from the Available School Fund were not sufficient to ameliorate these disparities. Prior to 1939, the Available School Fund contributed money to every school district at a rate of $17.50 per school-age child. Although the amount was increased several times in the early 1940’s, the Fund was providing only $46 per student by 1945. Recognizing the need for increased state funding to help offset disparities in local spending and to meet Texas’ changing educational requirements, the state legislature in the late 1940’s undertook a thorough evaluation of public education with an eye toward major reform. In 1947, an 18-member committee, composed of educators and legislators, was appointed to explore alternative systems in other States and to propose a funding scheme that would guarantee a minimum or basic educational offering to each child and that would help overcome interdistrict disparities in taxable resources. The Committee’s efforts led to the passage of the Gilmer-Aikin bills, named for the Committee’s co-chairmen, establishing the Texas Minimum Foundation School Program. Today, this Program accounts for approximately half of the total educational expenditures in Texas. The Program calls for state and local contributions to a fund earmarked specifically for teacher salaries, operating expenses, and transportation costs. The State, supplying funds from its general revenues, finances approximately 80% of the Program, and the school districts are responsible — as a unit — for providing the remaining 20%. The districts’ share, known as the Local Fund Assignment, is apportioned among the school districts under a formula designed to reflect each district’s relative taxpaying ability. The Assignment is first divided among Texas’ 254 counties pursuant to a complicated economic index that takes into account the relative value of each county’s contribution to the State’s total income from manufacturing, mining, and agricultural activities. It also considers each county’s relative share of all payrolls paid within the State and, to a lesser extent, considers each county’s share of all property in the State. Each county’s assignment is then divided among its school districts on the basis of each district’s share of assessable property within the county. The district, in turn, finances its share of the Assignment out of revenues from local property taxation. The design of this complex system was twofold. First, it was an attempt.to assure that the Foundation Program would have an equalizing influence on expenditure levels between school districts by placing the heaviest burden on the school districts most capable of paying. Second, the Program’s architects sought to establish a Local Fund Assignment that would force every school district to contribute to the education of its children but that would not by itself exhaust any district’s resources. Today every school district does impose a property tax from which it' derives locally expendable funds in excess of the amount necessary to satisfy its Local Fund Assignment under the Foundation Program. In the years since this program went into operation in 1949, expenditures for education- — from state as well as local sources — have increased steadily. Between 1949 and 1967, expenditures increased approximately 500%. In the last decade alone the total public school budget rose from $750 million to $2.1 billion and these increases have been reflected in consistently rising per-pupil expenditures throughout the State. Teacher salaries, by far the largest item in any school’s budget, have increased dramatically — the state-supported minimum salary for teachers possessing college degrees has risen from $2,400 to $6,000 over the last 20 years. The school district in which appellees reside, the Edge-wood Independent School District, has been compared throughout this litigation with the Alamo Heights Independent School District. This comparison between the least and most affluent districts in the San Antonio area serves to illustrate the manner in which the dual system of finance operates and to indicate the extent to which substantial disparities exist despite the State’s impressive progress in recent years. Edgewood is one of seven public school districts in the metropolitan area. Approximately 22,000 students are enrolled in its 25 elementary and secondary schools. The district is situated in the core-city sector of San Antonio in a residential neighborhood that has little commercial or industrial property. The residents are predominantly of Mexican-American descent: approximately 90% of the student population is Mexican-American and over 6% is Negro. The average assessed property value per pupil is $5,960 — the lowest in the metropolitan area — and the median family income ($4,686) is also the lowest. At an equalized tax rate of $1.05 per $100 of assessed property — the highest in the metropolitan area — the district contributed $26 to the education of each child for the 1967— 1968 school year above its Local Fund Assignment for the Minimum Foundation Program. The Foundation Program contributed $222 per pupil for a state-local total of $248. Federal funds added another $108 for a total of $356 per pupil. Alamo Heights is the most affluent school district in San Antonio. Its six schools, housing approximately 5,000 students, are situated in a residential community quite unlike the Edgewood District. The school population is predominantly “Anglo,” having only 18% Mexican-Americans and less than 1% Negroes. The assessed property value per pupil exceeds $49,000, and the median family income is $8,001. In 1967-1968 the local tax rate of $.85 per $100 of valuation yielded $333 per pupil over and above its contribution to the Foundation Program. Coupled with the $225 provided from that Program, the district was able to supply $558 per student. Supplemented by a $36 per-pupil grant from federal sources, Alamo Heights spent $594 per pupil. Although the 1967-1968 school year figures provide the only complete statistical breakdown for each category of aid, more recent partial statistics indicate that the previously noted trend of increasing state aid has been significant. For the 1970-1971 school year, the Foundation School Program allotment for Edgewood was $356 per pupil, a 62% increase over the 1967-1968 school year. Indeed, state aid alone in 1970-1971 equaled Edgewood’s entire 1967-1968 school budget from local, state, and federal sources. Alamo Heights enjoyed a similar increase under the Foundation Program, netting $491 per pupil in 1970-1971. These recent figures also reveal the extent to which these two districts’ allotments were funded from their own required contributions to the Local Fund Assignment. Alamo Heights, because of its relative wealth, was required to contribute out of its local property tax collections approximately $100 per pupil, or about 20% of its Foundation grant. Edgewood, on the other hand, paid only $8.46 per pupil, which is about 2.4% of its grant. It appears then that, at least as to these two districts, the Local Fund Assignment does reflect a rough approximation of the relative taxpaying potential of each. Despite these recent increases, substantial interdistrict disparities in school expenditures found by the District Court to prevail in San Antonio and in varying degrees throughout the State still exist. And it was these disparities, largely attributable to differences in the amounts of money collected through local property taxation, that led the District Court to conclude that Texas’ dual system of public school financing violated the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court held that the Texas system discriminates on the basis of wealth in the manner in which education is provided for its people. 337 F. Supp., at 282. Finding that wealth is a “suspect” classification and that education is a “fundamental” interest, the District Court held that the Texas system could be sustained only if the State could show that it was premised upon some compelling state interest. Id., at 282-284. On this issue the court concluded that “[n]ot only are defendants unable to demonstrate compelling state interests... they fail even to establish a reasonable basis for these classifications.” Id., at 284. Texas virtually concedes that its historically rooted dual system of financing education could not withstand the strict judicial scrutiny that this Court has found appropriate in reviewing legislative judgments that interfere with fundamental constitutional rights or that involve suspect classifications. If, as previous decisions have indicated, strict scrutiny means that the State’s system is not entitled to the usual presumption of validity, that the State rather than the complainants must carry a “heavy burden of justification,” that the State must demonstrate that its educational system has been structured with “precision,” and is “tailored” narrowly to serve legitimate objectives and that it has selected the “less drastic means” for effectuating its objectives, the Texas financing system and its counterpart in virtually every other State will not pass muster. The State candidly admits that “[n]o one familiar with the Texas system would contend that it has yet achieved perfection.” Apart from its concession that educational financing in Texas has “defects” and “imperfections,” the State defends the system’s rationality with vigor and disputes the District Court’s finding that it lacks a “reasonable basis.” This, then, establishes the framework for our analysis. We must decide, first, whether the Texas system of financing public education operates to the disadvantage of some suspect class or impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution, thereby requiring strict judicial scrutiny. If so, the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed. If not, the Texas scheme must still be examined to determine whether it rationally furthers some legitimate, articulated state purpose and therefore does not constitute an invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. II The District Court’s opinion does not reflect the novelty and complexity of the constitutional questions posed by appellees’ challenge to Texas’ system of school financing. In concluding that strict judicial scrutiny was required, that court relied on decisions dealing with the rights of indigents to equal treatment in the criminal trial and appellate processes, and on cases disapproving wealth restrictions on the right to vote. Those cases, the District Court concluded, established wealth as a suspect classification. Finding that the local property tax system discriminated on the basis of wealth, it regarded those precedents as controlling. It then reasoned, based on decisions of this Court affirming the undeniable importance of education, that there is a fundamental right to education and that, absent some compelling state justification, the Texas system could not stand. We are unable to agree that this case, which in significant aspects is sui generis, may be so neatly fitted into the conventional mosaic of constitutional analysis under the Equal Protection Clause. Indeed, for the several reasons that follow, we find neither the suspect-classification nor the fundamental-interest analysis persuasive. A The wealth discrimination discovered by the District Court in this case, and by several other courts that have recently struck down school-financing laws in other States, is quite unlike any of the forms of wealth discrimination heretofore reviewed by this Court. Rather than focusing on the unique features of the alleged discrimination, the courts in these cases have virtually assumed their findings of a suspect classification through a simplistic process of analysis: since, under the traditional systems of financing public schools, some poorer people receive less expensive educations than other more affluent people, these systems discriminate on the basis of wealth. This approach largely ignores the hard threshold questions, including whether it makes a difference for purposes of consideration under the Constitution that the class of disadvantaged “poor” cannot be identified or defined in customary equal protection terms, and whether the relative — rather than absolute- — nature of the asserted deprivation is of significant consequence. Before a State’s laws and the justifications for the classifications they create are subjected to strict judicial scrutiny, we think these threshold considerations must be analyzed more closely than they were in the court below. The case comes to us with no definitive description of the classifying facts or delineation of the disfavored class. Examination of the District Court’s opinion and of appellees’ complaint, briefs, and contentions at oral argument suggests, however, at least three ways in which the discrimination claimed here might be described. The Texas system of school financing might be regarded as discriminating (1) against “poor” persons whose incomes fall below some identifiable level of poverty or who might be characterized as functionally “indigent,” or (2) against those who are relatively poorer than others, or (3) against all those who, irrespective of their personal incomes, happen to reside in relatively poorer school districts. Our task must be to ascertain whether, in fact, the Texas system has been shown to discriminate on any of these possible bases and, if so, whether the resulting classification may be regarded as suspect. The precedents of this Court provide the proper starting point. The individuals, or groups of individuals, who constituted.the class discriminated against in our prior cases shared two distinguishing characteristics: because of their impecunity they were completely unable to pay for some desired benefit, and as a consequence, they sustained an absolute deprivation of a meaningful opportunity to enjoy that benefit. In Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956), and its progeny, the Court invalidated state laws that prevented an indigent criminal defendant from acquiring a transcript, or an adequate substitute for a transcript, for use at several stages of the trial and appeal process. The payment requirements in each case were found to occasion de facto discrimination against those who, because of their indigency, were totally unable to pay for transcripts. And the Court in each case emphasized that no constitutional violation would have been shown if the State had provided some “adequate substitute” for a full stenographic transcript. Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U. S. 226, 228 (1971); Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367 (1969); Draper v. Washington, 372 U. S. 487 (1963); Eskridge v. Washington Prison Board, 357 U. S. 214 (1958). Likewise, in Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963), a decision establishing an indigent defendant’s right to court-appointed counsel on direct appeal, the Court dealt only with defendants who could not pay for counsel from their own resources and who had no other way of gaining representation. Douglas provides no relief for those on whom the burdens of paying for a criminal defense are, relatively speaking, great but not insurmountable. Nor does it deal with relative differences in the quality of counsel acquired by the less wealthy. Williams v. Illinois, 399 U. S. 235 (1970), and Tate v. Short, 401 U. S. 395 (1971), struck down criminal penalties that subjected indigents to incarceration simply because of their inability to pay a fine. Again, the disadvantaged class was composed only of persons who were totally unable to pay the demanded sum. Those cases do not touch on the question whether equal protection is denied to persons with relatively less money on whom designated fines impose heavier burdens. The Court has not held that fines must be structured to reflect each person’s ability to pay in order to avoid disproportionate burdens. Sentencing judges may, and often do, consider the defendant’s ability to pay, but in such circumstances they are guided by sound judicial discretion rather than by constitutional mandate. Finally, in Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134 (1972), the Court invalidated the Texas filing-fee requirement for primary elections. Both of the relevant classifying facts found in the previous cases were present there. The size of the fee, often running into the thousands of dollars and, in at least one case, as high as $8,900, effectively barred all potential candidates who were unable to pay the required fee. As the system provided “no reasonable alternative means of access to the ballot” (id., at 149), inability to pay occasioned an absolute denial of a position on the primary ballot. Only appellees’ first possible basis for describing the class disadvantaged by the Texas school-financing system — discrimination against a class of definably “poor” persons — might arguably meet the criteria established in these prior cases. Even a cursory examination, however, demonstrates that neither of the two distinguishing characteristics of wealth classifications can be found here. First, in support of their charge that the system discriminates against the “poor,” appellees have made no effort to demonstrate that it operates to the peculiar disadvantage of any class fairly definable as indigent, or as composed of persons whose incomes are beneath any designated poverty level. Indeed, there is reason to believe that the poorest families are not necessarily clustered in the poorest property districts. A recent and exhaustive study of school districts in Connecticut concluded that “[i]t is clearly incorrect... to contend that the ‘poor’ live in 'poor’ districts.... Thus, the major factual assumption of Serrano — that the educational financing system discriminates against the 'poor’ — is simply false in Connecticut.” Defining “poor” families as those below the Bureau of the Census “poverty level,” the Connecticut study found, not surprisingly, that the poor were clustered around commercial and industrial areas — those same areas that provide the most attractive sources of property tax income for school districts. Whether a similar pattern would be discovered in Texas is not known, but there is no basis on the record in this case for assuming that the poorest people — defined by reference to any level of absolute impecunity — are concentrated in the poorest districts. Second, neither appellees nor the District Court addressed the fact that, unlike each of the foregoing cases, lack of personal resources has not occasioned an absolute deprivation of the desired benefit. The argument here is not that the children in districts having relatively low assessable property values are receiving no public education; rather, it is that they are receiving a poorer quality education than that available to children in districts having more assessable wealth. Apart from the unsettled and disputed question whether the quality of education may be determined by the amount of money expended for it, a sufficient answer to appellees’ argument is that, at least where wealth is involved, the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages. Nor, indeed, in view of the infinite variables affecting the educational process, can any system assure equal quality of education except in the most relative sense. Texas asserts that the Minimum Foundation Program provides an “adequate” education for all children in the State. By providing 12 years of free public-school education, and by assuring teachers, books, transportation, and operating funds, the Texas Legislature has endeavored to “guarantee, for the welfare of the state as a whole, that all people shall have at least an adequate program of education. This is what is meant by ‘A Minimum Foundation Program of Education.’ ” The State repeatedly asserted in its briefs in this Court that it has fulfilled this desire and that it now assures “every child in every school district an adequate education.” No proof was offered at trial persuasively discrediting or refuting the State’s assertion. For these two reasons — the absence of any evidence that the financing system discriminates against any definable category of “poor” people or that it results in the absolute deprivation of education — the disadvantaged class is not susceptible of identification in traditional terms. As suggested above, appellees and the District Court may have embraced a second or third approach, the second of which might be characterized as a theory of relative or comparative discrimination based on family income. Appellees sought to prove that a direct correlation exists between the wealth of families within each district and the expenditures therein for education. That is, along a continuum, the poorer the family the lower the dollar amount of education received by the family’s children. The principal evidence adduced in support of this comparative-discrimination claim is an affidavit submitted by Professor Joel S. Berke of Syracuse University’s Educational Finance Policy Institute. The District Court, relying in major part upon this affidavit and apparently accepting the substance of appellees’ theory, noted, first, a positive correlation between the wealth of school districts, measured in terms of assessable property per pupil, and their levels of per-pupil expenditures. Second, the court found a similar correlation between district wealth and the personal wealth of its residents, measured in terms of median family income. 337 F. Supp., at 282 n. 3. If, in fact, these correlations could be sustained, then it might be argued that expenditures on education— equated by appellees to the quality of education — are dependent on personal wealth. Appellees’ comparative-discrimination theory would still face serious unanswered questions, including whether a bare positive correlation or some higher degree of correlation is necessary to provide a basis for concluding that the financing system is designed to operate to the peculiar disadvantage of the comparatively poor, and whether a class of this size and diversity could ever claim the special protection accorded “suspect” classes. These questions need not be addressed in this case, however, since appellees’ proof fails to support their allegations or the District Court’s conclusions. Professor Berke’s affidavit is based on a survey of approximately 10% of the school districts in Texas. His findings, previously set out in the margin show only that the wealthiest few districts in the sample have the highest median family incomes and spend the most on education, and that the several poorest districts have the lowest family incomes and devote the least amount of money to education. For the remainder of the districts— 96 districts composing almost 90% of the sample — the correlation is inverted, i. e., the districts that spend next to the most money on education are populated by families having next to the lowest median family incomes while the districts spending the least have the highest median family incomes. It is evident that, even if the conceptual questions were answered favorably to appellees, no factual basis exists upon which to found a claim of comparative wealth discrimination. This brings us, then, to the third way in which the classification scheme might be defined — district wealth discrimination. Since the only correlation indicated by the evidence is between district property wealth and expenditures, it may be argued that discrimination might be found without regard to the individual income characteristics of district residents. Assuming a perfect correlation between district property wealth and expenditures from top to bottom, the disadvantaged class might be viewed as encompassing every child in every district except the district that has the most assessable wealth and spends the most on education. Alternatively, as suggested in Mr. Justice Marshall’s dissenting opinion, post, at 96, the class might be defined more restrictively to include children in districts with assessable property which falls below the statewide average, or median, or below some other artificially defined level. However described, it is clear that appellees’ suit asks this Court to extend its most exacting scrutiny to review a system that allegedly discriminates against a large, diverse, and amorphous class, unified only by the common factor of residence in districts that happen to have less taxable wealth than other districts. The system of alleged discrimination and the class it defines have none of the traditional indicia of suspectness: the class is not saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process. - We thus conclude that the Texas system does not operate to the peculiar disadvantage of any suspect class. But in recognition of the fact that this Court has never heretofore held that wealth discrimination alone provides an adequate basis for invoking strict scrutiny, appellees have not relied solely on this contention: They also assert that the State’s system impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a “fundamental” right and that accordingly the prior decisions of this Court require the application of the strict standard of judicial review. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 375-376 (1971) ; Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U. S. 621 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969). It is this question — whether education is a fundamental right, in the sense that it is among the rights and liberties protected by the Constitution — which has so consumed the attention of courts and commentators in recent years. B In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), a unanimous Court recognized that “education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.” Id., at 493. What was said there in the context of racial discrimination has lost none of its vitality with the passage of time: “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.” Ibid. This theme, expressing an abiding respect for the vital role of education in a free society, may be found in numerous opinions of Justices of this Court writing both before and after Brown was decided. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 213 (Burger, C. J.), 237, 238-239 (White, J.), (1972); Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 230 (1963) (Brennan, J.); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, 212 (1948) (Frank-furter, J.); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923); Interstate Consolidated Street R. Co. v. Massachusetts, 207 U. S. 79 (1907). Nothing this Court holds today in any way detracts from our historic dedication to public education. We are in complete agreement with the conclusion of the three-judge panel below that “the grave significance of education both to the individual and to our society” cannot be doubted. But the importance of a service performed by the State does not determine whether it must be regarded as fundamental for purposes of examination under the Equal Protection Clause. Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting from the Court’s application of strict scrutiny to a law impinging upon the right of interstate travel, admonished that “[virtually every state statute affects important rights.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S., at 655, 661. In his view, if the degree of judicial scrutiny of state legislation fluctuated, depending on a majority’s view of the importance of the interest affected, we would have gone “far toward making this Court a'super-legislature.’ ” Ibid. We would, indeed, then be assuming a legislative role and one for which the Court lacks both authority and competence. But Mr. Justice Stewart’s response in Shapiro to Mr. Justice Harlan’s concern correctly articulates the limits of the fundamental-rights rationale employed in the Court’s equal protection decisions: “The Court today does not 'pick out particular human activities, characterize them as “fundamental,” and give them added protection....’ To the contrary, the Court simply recognizes, as it must, an established constitutional right, and gives to that right no less protection than the Constitution itself demands.” Id., at 642. (Emphasis in original.) Mr. Justice Stewart’s statement serves to underline what the opinion of the Court in Shapiro makes clear. In subjecting to strict judicial scrutiny state welfare eligibility statutes that imposed a one-year durational residency requirement as a precondition to receiving AFDC benefits, the Court explained: “[I]n moving from State to State... appellees were exercising a constitutional right, and any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional.” Id., at 634. (Emphasis in original.) The right to interstate travel had long been recognized as a right of constitutional significance, and the Court’s decision, therefore, did not require an ad hoc determination as to the social or economic importance of that right. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56 (1972), decided only last Term, firmly reiterates that social importance is not the critical determinant for subjecting state legislation to strict scrutiny. The complainants in that case, involving a challenge to the procedural limitations imposed on tenants in suits brought by landlords under Oregon’s Forcible Entry and Wrongful Detainer Law, urged the Court to examine the operation of the statute under “a more stringent standard than mere rationality.” Id., at 73. The tenants argued that the statutory limitations implicated “fundamental interests which are particularly important to the poor,” such as the “ 'need for decent shelter’ ” and the “ 'right to retain peaceful possession of one’s home.’ ” Ibid. Mr. Justice White’s analysis, in his opinion for the Court, is instructive: “We do not denigrate the importance of decent, safe, and sanitary housing. But the Constitution does not provide judicial remedies for every social and economic ill. We are unable to perceive in that document any constitutional guarantee of access to dwellings of a particular quality or any recognition of the right of a tenant to occupy the real property of his landlord beyond the term of his lease, without the payment of rent.... Absent constitutional mandate, the assurance of adequate housing and the definition of landlord-tenant relationships are legislative, not judicial, functions.” Id., at 74. (Emphasis supplied.) Similarly, in Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970), the Court’s explicit recognition of the fact that the “administration of public welfare assistance... involves the most basic economic needs of impoverished human beings,” id., at 485, provided no basis for departing from the settled mode of constitutional analysis of legislative classifications involving questions of economic and social policy. As in the case of housing, the central importance of welfare benefits to the poor was not an adequate foundation for requiring the State to justify its law by showing some compelling state interest. See also Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535 (1972); Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S. 78 (1971). The lesson of these cases in addressing the question now before the Court is plain. It is not the province of this Court to create substantive constitutional rights in the name of guaranteeing equal protection of the laws. Thus, the key to discovering whether education is “fundamental” is not to be found in comparisons of the relative societal significance of education as opposed to subsistence or housing. Nor is it to be found by weighing whether education is as important as the right to travel. Rather, the answer lies in assessing whether there is a right to education explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972); Police Dept, of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535 (1942). Education, of course, is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution. Nor do we find any basis for saying it is implicitly so protected. As we have said, the undisputed importance of education will not alone cause this Court to depart from the usual standard for reviewing a State’s social and economic legislation. It is appellees’ contention, however, that education is distinguishable from other services and benefits provided by the State because it bears a peculiarly close relationship to other rights and liberties accorded protection under the Constitution. Specifically, they insist that education is itself a fundamental personal right because it is essential to the effective exercise of First Amendment freedoms and to intelligent utilization of the right to vote. In asserting a nexus between speech and education, appellees urge that the right to speak is meaningless unless the speaker is capable of articulating his thoughts intelligently and persuasively. The “marketplace of ideas” is an empty forum for those lacking basic communicative tools. Likewise, they argue that the corollary right to receive information becomes little more than a hollow privilege when the recipient has not been taught to read, assimilate, and utilize available knowledge. A similar line of reasoning is pursued with respect to the right to vote. Exercise of the franchise, it is contended, cannot be divorced from the educational foundation of the voter. The electoral process, if reality is to conform to the democratic ideal, depends on an informed electorate: a voter cannot cast his ballot intelligently unless his reading skills and thought processes have been adequately developed. We need not dispute any of these propositions. The Court has long afforded zealous protection against unjustifiable governmental interference with the individual’s rights to speak and to vote. Yet we have never presumed to possess either the ability or the authority to guarantee to the citizenry the most effective speech or the most informed electoral choice. That these may be desirable goals of a system of freedom of expression and of a representative form of government is not to be doubted. These are indeed goals to be pursued by a people whose thoughts and beliefs are freed from governmental interference. But they are not values to be implemented by judicial intrusion into otherwise legitimate state Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. In this appeal we consider the constitutionality of a now superseded Louisiana statute that gave a husband, as “head and master” of property jointly owned with his wife, the unilateral right to dispose of such property without his spouse’s consent. Concluding that the provision violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidating the statute. I In 1974, appellee Joan Feenstra filed a criminal complaint against her husband, Harold Feenstra, charging him with molesting their minor daughter. While incarcerated on that charge, Mr. Feenstra retained appellant Karl Kirehberg, an attorney, to represent him. Mr. Feenstra signed a $3,000 promissory note in prepayment for legal services to be performed by appellant Kirehberg. As security on this note, Mr. Feenstra executed a mortgage in favor of appellant on the home he jointly owned with his wife. Mrs. Feenstra was not informed of the mortgage, and her consent was not required because a state statute, former Art. 2404 of the Louisiana Civil Code Ann. (West 1971), gave her husband exclusive control over the disposition of community property. Mrs. Feenstra eventually dropped the charge against her husband. He did not return home, but instead obtained a legal separation from his wife and moved out of the State. Mrs. Feenstra first learned of the existence of the mortgage in 1976, when appellant Kirehberg threatened to foreclose on her home unless she paid him the amount outstanding on the promissory note executed by her husband. After Mrs. Feen-stra refused to pay the obligation, Kirehberg obtained an order of executory process directing the local sheriff to seize and sell the Feenstra home. Anticipating Mrs. Feenstra’s defense to the foreclosure action, Kirehberg in March 1976 filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking a declaratory judgment against Mrs. Feenstra that he was not liable under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1601 et seq., for any nondisclosures concerning the mortgage he held on the Feenstra home. In her answer to Kirchberg’s complaint, Mrs. Feenstra alleged as a counterclaim that Kirch-berg has violated the Act, but also included a second counterclaim challenging the constitutionality of the statutory scheme that empowered her husband unilaterally to execute a mortgage on their jointly owned home. The State of Louisiana and its Governor were joined as third-party defendants on the constitutional counterclaim. The governmental parties, joined by appellant, moved for summary judgment on this claim. The District Court, characterizing Mrs. Feenstra’s counterclaim as an attack on “the bedrock of Louisiana’s community property system,” granted the State’s motion for summary judgment. 430 F. Supp. 642, 644 (1977). While Mrs. Feenstra’s appeal from the District Court’s order was pending before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Louisiana Legislature completely revised its code provisions relating to community property. In so doing, the State abandoned the “head and master” concept embodied in Art. 2404, and instead granted spouses equal control over the disposition of community property. La. Civ. Code Ann., Art. 2346 (West Supp. 1981). The new code also provided that community immovables could not be alienated, leased, or otherwise encumbered without the concurrence of both spouses. La. Civ. Code Ann., Art. 2347 (West Supp. 1981). These provisions, however, did not take effect until January 1, 1980, and the Court of Appeals was therefore required to consider whether Art. 2404, the Civil Code provision which had authorized Mr. Feenstra to mortgage his home in 1974 without his wife’s knowledge or consent, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because this provision explicitly discriminated on the basis of gender, the Court of Appeals properly inquired whether the statutory grant to the husband of exclusive control over disposition of community property was substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental objective. See, e. g., Wengler v. Druggist Mutual Ins. Co., 446 U. S. 142 (1980); Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190 (1976). The court noted that the State had advanced only one justification for the provision — that “[o]ne of the two spouses has to be designated as the manager of the community.” The court agreed that the State had an interest in defining the manner in which community property was to be managed, but found that the State had failed to show why the mandatory designation of the husband as manager of the property was necessary to further that interest. The court therefore concluded that Art. 2404 violated the Equal Protection Clause. However, because the court believed that a retroactive application of its decision “would create a substantial hardship with respect to property rights and obligations within the State of Louisiana,” the decision was limited to prospective application. 609 F. 2d 727, 735-736 (1979). Only Kirchberg appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeals to this Court. We noted probable jurisdiction. 446 U. S. 917 (1980). II By granting the husband exclusive control over the disposition of community property, Art. 2404 clearly embodies the type of express gender-based discrimination that we have found unconstitutional absent a showing that the classification is tailored to further an important governmental interest. In defending the constitutionality of Art. 2404, appellant Kirchberg does not claim that the provision serves any such interest. Instead, appellant attempts to distinguish this Court’s decisions in cases such as Craig v. Boren, supra, and Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S. 268 (1979), which struck down similar gender-based statutory classifications, by arguing that appellee Feenstra, as opposed to the disadvantaged individuals in those cases, could have taken steps to avoid the discriminatory impact of Art. 2404. Appellant notes that under Art. 2334 of the Louisiana Civil Code, in effect at the time Mr. Feenstra executed the mortgage, Mrs. Feenstra could have made a “declaration by authentic act” prohibiting her husband from executing a mortgage on her home without her consent. By failing to take advantage of this procedure, Mrs. Feenstra, in appellant’s view, became the “architect of her own predicament” and therefore should not be heard to complain of the discriminatory impact of Art. 2404. By focusing on steps that Mrs. Feenstra could have taken to preclude her husband from mortgaging their home without her consent, however, appellant overlooks the critical question: Whether Art. 2404 substantially furthers an important government interest. As we have previously noted, the “absence of an insurmountable barrier” will not redeem an otherwise unconstitutionally discriminatory law. Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 774 (1977). See Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 (1973). Cf. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522 (1975); Reed v Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971). Instead the burden remains on the party seeking to uphold a statute that expressly discriminates on the basis of sex to advance an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the challenged classification. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 273 (1979). See also Wengler v. Druggist Mutual Ins. Co., supra, at 151. Because appellant has failed to offer such a justification, and because the State, by declining to appeal from the decision below, has apparently abandoned any claim that an important government objective was served by the statute, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals invalidating Art. 2404. Ill Appellant’s final contention is that even if Art. 2404 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the mortgage he holds on the Feenstra home is nonetheless valid because the Court of Appeals limited its ruling to prospective application. Appellant asserts that the opinion of the Court of Appeals is ambiguous on whether the court intended to apply its prospective ruling to his mortgage, which was executed in 1974, or only to those dispositions of community property made pursuant to Art. 2404 between December 12, 1979, the date of the court’s decision, and January 1, 1980, the effective date of Louisiana’s new community property law. Appellant urges this Court to adopt the latter interpretation on the ground that a contrary decision would create grave uncertainties concerning the validity of mortgages executed unilaterally by husbands between 1974 and the date of the Court of Appeals’ decision. We decline to address appellant’s concerns about the potential impact of the Court of Appeals’ decision on other mortgages executed pursuant to Art. 2404. The only question properly before us is whether the decision of the Court of Appeals applies to the mortgage in this case, and on that issue we find no ambiguity. This case arose not from any abstract disagreement between the parties over the constitutionality of Art. 2404, but from appellant’s attempt to foreclose on the mortgage he held on the Feenstra home. Appellant brought this declaratory judgment action to further that end, and the counterclaim asserted by Mrs. Feenstra specifically sought as relief “a declaratory judgment that the mortgage executed on [her] home by her husband ... is void as having been executed and recorded without her consent pursuant to an unconstitutional state statute.” Thus, the dispute between the parties at its core involves the validity of a single mortgage, and in passing on the constitutionality of Art. 2404, the Court of Appeals clearly intended to resolve that controversy adversely to appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. So ordered. Article 2404, in effect at the time Mr. Feenstra executed the mortgage in favor of appellant, provided in pertinent part: “The husband is the head and master of the partnership or community of gains; he administers its effects, disposes of the revenues which they produce, and may alienate them by an onerous title, without the consent and permission of his wife.” This provision has been repealed. See infra, at 458, and nn. 3 and 4. After the District Court granted summary judgment against appellee Feenstra on her constitutional challenge to the head and master statute, she and appellant Kirchberg agreed to the dismissal with prejudice of their Truth in Lending Act claims. Article 2346 provides that i([e]ach spouse acting alone may manage, control, or dispose of community property unless otherwise provided by law.” However, either spouse may renounce his or her right to concur in the disposition of community immovables. La. Civ. Code Ann., Art. 2348 (West Supp. 1981). This assertion was made in the State’s brief before the Court of Appeals. 609 F. 2d 727, 735 (1979). The State and the Governor, as appellees, subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Kirchberg’s appeal on the ground that extensive revisions in the State’s community property law, see supra, at 458, and nn. 3 and 4, had rendered moot the controversy over the constitutionality of Art. 2404. However, because these legislative changes were effective only as of January 1, 1980, they do not govern the mortgage executed by Mr. Feenstra in 1974. The suggestion of mootness was therefore rejected. 449 U. S. 916 (1980). Nor will this. Court speculate about the existence of such a justification. “The burden ... is on those defending the discrimination to make out the claimed justification . . . Wengler v. Druggist Mutual Ins. Co., 446 U. S. 142, 151 (1980). We note, however, that the failure of the State to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals and the decision of the Louisiana Legislature to replace Art. 2404 with a gender-neutral statute, suggest that appellant would be hard pressed to show that the challenged provision substantially furthered an important governmental interest. Article 2334, as it existed in 1974, provided: “Where the title to immovable property stands in the names of both the husband and the wife, it may not be leased, mortgaged or sold by the husband without the wife’s consent where she has made a declaration by authentic act that her authority and consent are required for such lease, sale or mortgage and has filed such a declaration in the mortgage and conveyance records of the parish in which the property is situated.” This Article has been replaced with a new code provision prohibiting either spouse from alienating or encumbering community immovables without the 'consent of the other spouse. See n. 3, supra. In so ruling, we also reject appellant’s secondary argument that the constitutional challenge to Art. 2404 should be rejected because the provision was an integral part of the State’s community property law and its invalidation would call into question the constitutionality of related provisions of the Louisiana Civil Code. The issue before us is not whether the State’s community property law, as it existed in 1974, could have functioned without Art. 2404, but rather whether that provision unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of sex. Indeed, appellant's view that some ambiguity exists concerning the applicability of the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the mortgage he held on the Feenstra home appears to be of recent vintage. Appellant Kirchberg never sought clarification from the Court of Appeals on the scope of its decision, and apparently regarded the court’s judgment to be sufficiently adverse and binding on him to warrant seeking review on the merits before this Court. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. Under both the Louisiana Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure, criminal cases in which the punishment is necessarily at hard labor are tried to a jury of 12, and the vote of nine jurors is sufficient to return either a guilty or not guilty verdict. The principal question in this case is whether these provisions allowing less-than-unanimous verdicts in certain cases are valid under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. I Appellant Johnson was arrested at his home on January 20, 1968. There was no arrest warrant, but the victim of an armed robbery had identified Johnson from photographs as having committed the crime. He was then identified at a lineup, at which he had counsel, by the victim of still another robbery. The latter crime is involved in this case. Johnson pleaded not guilty, was tried on May 14, 1968, by a 12-man jury and was convicted by a nine-to-three verdict. His due process and equal protection challenges to the Louisiana constitutional and statutory provisions were rejected by the Louisiana courts, 255 La. 314, 230 So. 2d 825 (1970), and he appealed here. We noted probable jurisdiction. 400 U. S. 900 (1970). Conceding that under Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), the Sixth Amendment is not applicable to his case, see DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U. S. 631 (1968), appellant presses his equal protection and due process claims, together with a Fourth Amendment claim also rejected by the Louisiana Supreme Court. We affirm. II Appellant argues that in order to give substance to the reasonable-doubt standard, which the State, by virtue of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, must satisfy in criminal cases, see In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 363-364 (1970), that clause must be construed to require a unanimous-jury verdict in all criminal cases. In so contending, appellant does not challenge the instructions in this case. Concededly, the jurors were told to convict only if convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor is there any claim that, if the verdict in this case had been unanimous, the evidence would have been insufficient to support it. Appellant focuses instead on the fact that less than all jurors voted to convict and argues that, because three voted to acquit, the reasonable-doubt- standard has not been satisfied and his conviction is therefore infirm. We note at the outset that this Court has never held jury unanimity to be a requisite of due process of law. Indeed, the Court has more than once expressly said that “[i]n criminal cases due process of law is not denied by a state law . . . which dispenses with the necessity of a jury of twelve, or unanimity in the verdict.” Jordan v. Massachusetts, 225 U. S. 167, 176 (1912) (dictum). Accord, Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 602, 605 (1900) (dictum). These statements, moreover, co-existed with cases indicating that proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is implicit in constitutions recognizing “the fundamental principles that are deemed essential for the protection of life and liberty.” Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469, 488 (1895). See also Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790, 802-803 (1952) (dissenting opinion); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 174 (1949); Coffin v. United States, 156 U. S. 432, 453-460 (1895). Entirely apart from these cases, however, it is our view that the fact of three dissenting votes to acquit raises no question of constitutional substance about either the integrity or the accuracy of the majority verdict of guilt. Appellant’s contrary argument breaks down into two parts, each of which we shall consider separately: first, that nine individual jurors will be unable to vote conscientiously in favor of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when three of their colleagues are arguing for acquittal, and second, that guilt cannot be said to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt when one or more of a jury’s members at the conclusion of deliberation still possess such a doubt. Neither argument is persuasive. Numerous cases have defined a reasonable doubt as one “ ‘based on reason which arises from the evidence or lack of evidence.’” United States v. Johnson, 343 F. 2d 5, 6 n. 1 (CA2 1965). Accord, e. g., Bishop v. United States, 71 App. D. C. 132, 138, 107 F. 2d 297, 303 (1939) ; United States v. Schneiderman, 106 F. Supp. 906, 927 (SD Cal. 1952); United States v. Haupt, 47 F. Supp. 836, 840 (ND Ill. 1942), rev’d on other grounds, 136 F. 2d 661 (CA7 1943). In Winship, supra, the Court recognized this evidentiary standard as “ ‘impress [ing] on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude of the facts in issue.’ ” 397 U. S., at 364 (citation omitted). In considering the first branch of appellant’s argument, we can find no basis for holding that the nine jurors who voted for his conviction failed to follow their instructions concerning the need for proof beyond such a doubt or that the vote of any one of the nine failed to reflect an honest belief that guilt had been so. proved. Appellant, in effect, asks us to assume that, when minority jurors express sincere doubts about guilt, their fellow jurors will nevertheless ignore them and vote to convict even if deliberation has not been exhausted and minority jurors have grounds for acquittal which, if pursued, might persuade members of the majority to acquit. But the mere fact that three jurors voted to acquit does not in itself demonstrate that, had the nine jurors of the majority attended further to reason and the evidence, all or one of them would have developed a reasonable doubt about guilt. We have no grounds for believing that majority jurors, aware of their responsibility and power over the liberty of the defendant, would simply refuse to listen to arguments presented to them in favor of acquittal, terminate discussion, and render a verdict. On the contrary it is far more likely that a juror presenting reasoned argument in favor of acquittal would either have his arguments answered or would carry enough other jurors with him to prevent conviction. A majority will cease discussion and outvote a minority only after reasoned discussion has ceased to have persuasive effect or to serve any other purpose — when a minority, that is, continues to insist upon acquittal without having persuasive reasons in support of its position. At that juncture there is no basis for denigrating the vote of so large a majority of the jury or for refusing to accept their decision as being, at least in their minds, beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, at this point, a “dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt was a reasonable one . . . [when it made] no impression upon the minds of so many men, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself.” Allen v. United States, 164 U. S. 492, 501 (1896). Appellant offers no evidence that majority jurors simply ignore the reasonable doubts of their colleagues or otherwise act irresponsibly in casting their votes in favor of conviction, and before we alter our own longstanding perceptions about jury behavior and overturn a considered legislative judgment that unanimity is not essential to reasoned jury verdicts, we must have some basis for doing so other than unsupported assumptions. We conclude, therefore, that, as to the nine jurors who voted to convict, the State satisfied its burden of proving guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. The remaining question under the Due Process Clause is whether the vote of three jurors for acquittal can be said to impeach the verdict of the other nine and to demonstrate that guilt was not in fact proved beyond such doubt. We hold that it cannot. Of course, the State’s proof could perhaps be regarded as more certain if it had convinced all 12 jurors instead of only nine; it would have been even more compelling if it had been required to convince and had, in fact, convinced 24 or 36 jurors. But the fact remains that nine jurors— a substantial majority of the jury — were convinced by the evidence. In our view disagreement of three jurors does not alone establish reasonable doubt, particularly when such a heavy majority of the jury, after having considered the dissenters’ views, remains convinced of guilt. That rational men disagree is not in itself equivalent to a failure of proof by the State, nor does it indicate infidelity to the reasonable-doubt standard. Jury verdicts finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are regularly sustained even though the evidence was such that the jury would have been justified in having a reasonable doubt, see United States v. Quarles, 387 F. 2d 551, 554 (CA4 1967); Bell v. United States, 185 F. 2d 302, 310 (CA4 1950); even though the trial judge might not have reached the same conclusion as the jury, see Takahashi v. United States, 143 F. 2d 118, 122 (CA9 1944); and even though appellate judges are closely divided on the issue whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction. See United States v. Johnson, 140 U. S. App. D. C. 54, 60, 433 F. 2d 1160, 1166 (1970); United States v. Manuel-Baca, 421 F. 2d 781, 783 (CA9 1970). That want of jury unanimity is not to be equated with the existence of a reasonable doubt emerges even more clearly from the fact that when a jury in a federal court, which operates under the unanimity rule and is instructed to acquit a defendant if it has a reasonable doubt about his guilt, see Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, 253 (1910); Agnew v. United States, 165 U. S. 36, 51 (1897); W. Mathes & E. Devitt, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions §8.01 (1965), cannot agree unanimously upon a verdict, the defendant is not acquitted, but is merely given a new trial. Downum v. United States, 372 U. S. 734, 736 (1963); Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71, 85-86 (1902); United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 580 (1824). If the doubt of a minority of jurors indicates the existence of a reasonable doubt, it would appear that a defendant should receive a directed verdict of acquittal rather than a retrial. We conclude, therefore, that verdicts rendered by nine out of 12 jurors are not automatically invalidated by the disagreement of the dissenting three. Appellant was not deprived of due process of law. Ill Appellant also attacks as violative of the Equal Protection Clause the provisions of Louisiana law requiring unanimous verdicts in capital and five-man jury cases, but permitting less-than-unanimous verdicts in cases such as his. We conclude, however, that the Louisiana statutory scheme serves a rational purpose and is not subject to constitutional challenge. In order to “facilitate, expedite, and reduce expense in the administration of criminal justice,” State v. Lewis, 129 La. 800, 804, 56 So. 893, 894 (1911), Louisiana has permitted less serious crimes to be tried by five jurors with unanimous verdicts, more serious crimes have required the assent of nine of 12 jurors, and for the most serious crimes a unanimous verdict of 12 jurors is stipulated. In appellant’s case, nine jurors rather than five or 12 were required for a verdict. We discern nothing invidious in this classification. We have held that the States are free under the Federal Constitution to try defendants with juries of less than 12 men. Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78 (1970). Three jurors here voted to acquit, but from what we have earlier said, this does not demonstrate that appellant was convicted on a lower standard of proof. To obtain a conviction in any of the categories under Louisiana law, the State must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but the number of jurors who must be so convinced increases with the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment that may be imposed. We perceive nothing unconstitutional or invidiously discriminatory, however, in a State’s insisting that its burden of proof be carried with more jurors where more serious crimes or more severe punishments are at issue. Appellant nevertheless insists that dispensing with unanimity in his case disadvantaged him as compared with those who commit less serious or capital crimes. With respect to the latter, he is correct; the State does make conviction more difficult by requiring the assent of all 12 jurors. Appellant might well have been ultimately acquitted had he committed a capital offense. But as we have indicated, this does not constitute a denial of equal protection of the law; the State may treat capital offenders differently without violating the constitutional rights of those charged with lesser crimes. As to the crimes triable by a five-man jury, if appellant’s position is that it is easier to convince nine of 12 jurors than to convince all of five, he is simply challenging the judgment of the Louisiana Legislature. That body obviously intended to vary the difficulty of proving guilt with the gravity of the offense and the severity of the punishment. We remain unconvinced by anything appellant has presented that this legislative judgment was defective in any constitutional sense. IV Appellant also urges that his nighttime arrest without a warrant was unlawful in the absence of a valid excuse for failing to obtain a warrant and, further, that his subsequent lineup identification was a forbidden fruit of the claimed invasion of his Fourth Amendment rights. The validity of Johnson’s arrest, however, is beside the point here, for it is clear that no evidence that might properly be characterized as the fruit of an illegal entry and arrest was used against him at his trial. Prior to the lineup, at which Johnson was represented by counsel, he was brought before a committing magistrate to advise him of his rights and set bail. At the time of the lineup, the detention of the appellant was under the authority of this commitment. Consequently, the lineup was conducted not by “exploitation” of the challenged arrest but “by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 488 (1963). The judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana is therefore Affirmed. La. Const., Art. VII, § 41, provides: “Section 41. The Legislature shall provide for the election and drawing of competent and intelligent jurors for the trial of civil and criminal eases; provided, however, that no woman shall be drawn for jury service unless she shall have previously filed with the clerk of the District Court a written declaration of her desire to be subject to such service. All eases in which the punishment may not be at hard labor shall, until otherwise provided by law, be tried by the judge without a jury. Cases, in which the punishment may be at hard labor, shall be tried by a jury of five, all of whom must concur to render a verdict; cases, in which the punishment is necessarily at hard labor, by a jury of twelve, nine of whom must concur to render a verdict; cases in which the punishment may be capital, by a jury of twelve, all of whom must concur to render a verdict.” La. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 782, provides: “Cases in which the punishment may be capital shall be tried by a jury of twelve jurors, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. Cases in which the punishment is necessarily at hard labor shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, nine of whom must concur to render a verdict. Cases in which the punishment may be imprisonment at hard labor, shall be tried by a jury composed of five jurors, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. Except as provided in Article 780, trial by jury may not be waived.” Coffin contains a lengthy discussion on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and other similar standards of proof in ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Roman law, as well as in the common law of England. This discussion suggests that the Court of the late 19th century would have held the States bound by the reasonable-doubt standard under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the assumption that the standard was essential to a civilized system of criminal procedure. See generally Duncan v. -Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149-150, n. 14 (1968). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court. The question here is whether Section 811 (g) (2) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 is constitutional as applied in this case. That section, the “payment of premiums” provision in the 1939 Code, requires inclusion of insurance proceeds in the gross estate of an insured where the proceeds are receivable by beneficiaries other than the executor but are attributable to premiums paid by the insured. Inclusion is required regardless of whether the insured retained any policy rights. However, if the insured possessed no “incidents of ownership” after January 10, 1941, the premiums paid by him before that date are excluded in determining the portion of the proceeds for which he paid the premiums. The facts in the case are stipulated. The insured died testate on July 15, 1954. The taxpayer is his executor. On the estate tax return, the taxpayer included, as part of the gross estate, the proceeds of four insurance policies payable to the wife of the insured. These policies were originally issued to the insured, but he divested himself of the policy rights by assigning them to his wife on December 18, 1936. However, he continued to pay the premiums on the policies until he died. After his death, the proceeds were retained by the insurer-for the benefit of the family, pursuant to the provisions of a settlement option selected by the wife. In auditing the return, the Revenue Service determined that only the portion of the proceeds attributable to premiums paid by the insured after January 10, 1941, should be included in his estate. Accordingly, the tax was adjusted and a refund was made. The executor then filed a claim for refund of the rest of the tax attributable to the inclusion of the proceeds. The executor claimed that because the decedent had divested himself of all interest in the policies in 1936, the tax constituted an unapportioned direct tax on property, invalid under Article I, Sections 2 and 9, of the Constitution. However, the Commissioner refused to allow the claim, and the present suit for refund followed. In the District Court, the executor added a claim that the tax is also invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment “because it is retroactive and discriminatory in its operation.” The District Court sustained the taxpayer’s contention that, as applied in this case, Section 811 (g)(2)(A) is unconstitutional. It held that because the decedent retained no incidents of ownership in the policies after 1936, “no transfer of the property herein sought to be included in the estate of this decedent occurred at the time of his death.” The court concluded that the tax was therefore a direct tax on the proceeds themselves and could not be levied without apportionment. 175 F. Supp. 291. The Government appealed directly to this Court under Sections 1252 and 2101 of Title 28, and we noted jurisdiction. 361 U. S. 880. The first objection to the tax is that it is a direct tax— that is, that it is not a tax upon a transfer or other taxable event but is, instead, a tax upon property — which Congress cannot exact without apportionment. This argument does not do justice to the evident intent of Congress to tax events, “as distinguished from [their] tangible fruits.” Tyler v. United States, 281 U. S. 497, 502. From its inception, the estate tax has been a tax on a class of events which Congress has chosen to label, in the provision which actually imposes the tax, “the transfer of the net estate of every decedent.” (Emphasis added.) See New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345. If there is any taxable event here which can fairly be said to be a “transfer” under this language in Section 810 of the 1939 Code, the tax is clearly constitutional without apportionment. For such a tax has always “been treated as a duty or excise, because of the particular occasion which gives rise to its levy.” Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 81; New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, supra, at 349. Under the statute, the occasion for the tax is the maturing of the beneficiaries’ right to the proceeds upon the death of the insured. Of course, if the insured possessed no policy rights, there is no transfer of any interest from him at the moment of death. But that fact is not material, for the taxable “transfer,” the maturing of the beneficiaries’ right to the proceeds, is the crucial last step in what Congress can reasonably treat as a testamentary disposition by the insured in favor of the beneficiaries. That disposition, which began with the payment of premiums by the insured, is completed by his death. His death creates a genuine enlargement of the beneficiaries’ rights. It is the “generating source” of the full value of the proceeds. See Schwarz v. United States, 170 F. Supp. 2, 6. The maturing of the right to proceeds is therefore an appropriate occasion for taxing the transaction to the estate of the insured. Cf. Tyler v. United States, 281 U. S. 497, 503, 504. ' There is no inconsistency between such a view of the taxable event and the basic definition of the subject of the tax in Section 810. “Obviously, the word 'transfer' in the statute, or the privilege which may constitutionally be taxed, cannot be taken in such a restricted sense as to refer only to the passing of particular items of property directly from the decedent to the transferee. It must ... at least include the transfer of property procured through expenditures by the decedent with the purpose, effected at his death, of having it pass to another.” Chase National Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327, 337. It makes no difference that the payment of premiums occurred during the lifetime of the insured and indirectly effected an inter vivos transfer of property to the owner of the policy rights. Congress can properly impose excise taxes on wholly inter vivos gifts. Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U. S. 124. It may impose an estate tax on inter vivos transfers looking toward death. Milliken v. United States, 283 U. S. 15. Surely, then, it may impose such a tax on the final step — the maturing of the right to proceeds — in a partly inter vivos transaction completed by death. The question is not whether there has been, in the strict sense of the word, a “transfer” of property owned by the decedent at the time of his death, but whether “the death has brought into being or ripened for the survivor, property rights of such character as to make appropriate the imposition of a tax upon that result . . . .” Tyler v. United States, supra, at 503. Therefore, this tax, laid on the “ripening,” at death, of rights paid for by the decedent, is not a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution. Cf. Chase National Bank v. United States, supra; Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U. S. 340; Tyler v. United States, supra; United States v. Jacobs, 306 U. S. 363. Further objections to the statute as applied in this case are predicated on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It is said that the statute operates retroactively. But the taxable event — the maturing of the policies at death — occurred long after the enactment of Section 811 (g)(2)(A) in 1942. Moreover, the payment of all but a few of the premiums in question occurred after the effective date of the statute, and those few were paid during the period after January 10, 1941, when regulations gave the insured fair notice of the likely tax consequences. See T. D. 5032, 1941-1 Cum. Bull. 427. Therefore, the statute cannot be said to be retroactive in its impact. It is not material that the policies were purchased and the policy rights were assigned before the statute was enacted. The tax is not laid on the creation or transfer of the policy rights, and it “does not operate retroactively merely because some of the facts or conditions upon which its application depends came into being prior to the enactment of the tax.” United States v. Jacobs, supra, at 367. The taxpayer argues, however, that the enactment of the statute subjected the insured to a choice between unpleasant alternatives: “[H]e could stop paying the premiums — in which case the policies would be destroyed; or, he could continue paying premiums — in which case they would be included in his estate.” But when he gave away the policy rights, the possibility that he would eventually be faced with that choice was an obvious risk, in view of the administrative history of the “payment of premiums” test. See 1 Paul, Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, § 10.13. The executor should not complain because his decedent gambled and lost. And, while it may be true that the insured could have avoided the tax only at the price of a loss on an investment already made, that fact alone does not prove that the lawmakers did “a wholly arbitrary thing,” or that they “found equivalence where there was none,” or that they “laid a burden unrelated to priyilege or benefit.” Burnet v. Wells, 289 U. S. 670, 679. Without such a showing, it cannot be held that the tax offends due process. Reversed. MR. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. These provisions were enacted, through amendment of §811 (g), by § 404 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 798, 944. As amended, § 811 provides in pertinent part that: “The value of the gross estate of the decedent shall be determined by including the value at the time of his death of all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated, except real property situated outside of the United States— “(g) Proceeds op Life Insurance.— “(1) Receivable by the executor. — To the extent of the amount receivable by the executor as insurance under policies upon the life of the decedent. “(2) Receivable by other beneficiaries. — To the extent of the amount receivable by all other beneficiaries as insurance under policies upon the life of the decedent (A) purchased with premiums, or other consideration, paid directly or indirectly by the decedent, in proportion that the amount so paid by the decedent bears to the total premiums paid for the insurance, or (B) with respect to which the decedent possessed at his death any of the incidents of ownership, exercisable either alone or in conjunction with any other person. . . ." § 404 (c), Revenue Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 798, 945. Section 404 (c) provides that: “The amendments made by subsection (a) [see note 1, supra] shall be applicable only to estates of decedents dying after the date of the enactment of this Act [October 21, 1942] ; but in determining the proportion of the premiums or other consideration paid directly or indirectly by the decedent (but not the total premiums paid) the amount so paid by the decedent on or before January 10, 1941, shall be excluded if at no time after such date the decedent possessed an incident of ownership in the policy.” January 10, 1941, was the effective date of a Treasury Regulation, T. D. 5032, 1941-1 Cum. Bull. 427, which provided for use of the “payment of premiums” test under § 811 (g) as it existed prior to the 1942 amendments, see note-1, supra, regardless of whether the decedent retained any incidents of ownership. The regulation also provided, however, that premiums paid by the decedent before its effective date were to be excluded if the decedent did not thereafter possess any incidents of ownership. It should be noted that the “payment of premiums” test was abandoned in the 1954 Code, which reverted to the exclusive use of the “incidents of ownership” test. See 26 U. S. C. § 2042. See note 2, supra. Article I, § 2, provides in pertinent part that: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers . . . Article I, § 9, provides in pertinent part that: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” This result is in accord with Kohl v. United States, 226 F. 2d 381 (C. A. 7th Cir.), the reasoning of which the District Court “adopted” as its own. As the District Court recognized, Kohl is in conflict with Estate of Loeb v. Commissioner, 261 F. 2d 232 (C. A. 2d Cir.), affirming 29 T. C. 22; Schwarz v. United States, 170 F. Supp. 2; cf. Colonial Trust Co. v. Kraemer, 63 F. Supp. 866; Estate of Baker v. Commissioner, 30 T. C. 776. Compare § 201 of the Revenue Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 756, 777, with § 810 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 53 Stat. 120. In the 1954 Code, the word “taxable” was substituted for the word “net” in this provision. 26 U. S. C. § 2001. Our view of the nature of the taxable event here involved makes it unnecessary to discuss United States v. Bess, 357 U. S. 51, and other similar cases relied on by the District Court. Nor do we find it necessary to consider at length Lewellyn v. Frick, 268 U. S. 238, or its progeny. The Court in Frick did not reach the constitutional issue. We do not agree with the holding in Kohl v. United States, 226 F. 2d 381, that T. D. 5032 “transcended” § 811 (g) as it existed in 1941 and that it was therefore “illegal and void.” T. D. 5032, in effect, construed the controlling language in the earlier statute — “taken out by the decedent,” 53 Stat. 122 — as meaning paid for by the insured. Such a construction was clearly not unreasonable. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

L

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. The Fair Housing Act (FHA or Act) forbids "discriminat[ing] against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race...." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). It further makes it unlawful for "any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available such a transaction, or in the terms or conditions of such a transaction, because of race...." § 3605(a). The statute allows any "aggrieved person" to file a civil action seeking damages for a violation of the statute. §§ 3613(a)(1)(A), 3613(c)(1). And it defines an "aggrieved person" to include "any person who... claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice." § 3602(i). The City of Miami claims that two banks, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, intentionally issued riskier mortgages on less favorable terms to African-American and Latino customers than they issued to similarly situated white, non-Latino customers, in violation of §§ 3604(b) and 3605(a). App. 185-197, 244-245, 350-362, 428. The City, in amended complaints, alleges that these discriminatory practices have (1) "adversely impacted the racial composition of the City," id., at 232, 416; (2) "impaired the City's goals to assure racial integration and desegregation," ibid. ; (3) "frustrate[d] the City's longstanding and active interest in promoting fair housing and securing the benefits of an integrated community," id., at 232-233, 416-417; and (4) disproportionately "cause[d] foreclosures and vacancies in minority communities in Miami," id., at 229, 413. Those foreclosures and vacancies have harmed the City by decreasing "the property value of the foreclosed home as well as the values of other homes in the neighborhood," thereby (a) "reduc[ing] property tax revenues to the City," id., at 234, 418, and (b) forcing the City to spend more on "municipal services that it provided and still must provide to remedy blight and unsafe and dangerous conditions which exist at properties that were foreclosed as a result of [the Banks'] illegal lending practices," id., at 233-234, 417. The City claims that those practices violate the FHA and that it is entitled to damages for the listed injuries. The Banks respond that the complaints do not set forth a cause of action for two basic reasons. First, they contend that the City's claimed harms do not "arguably" fall within the "zone of interests" that the statute seeks to protect, Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970) ; hence, the City is not an "aggrieved person" entitled to sue under the Act, § 3602(i). Second, they say that the complaint fails to draw a "proximate-cause" connection between the violation claimed and the harm allegedly suffered. In their view, even if the City proves the violations it charges, the distance between those violations and the harms the City claims to have suffered is simply too great to entitle the City to collect damages. We hold that the City's claimed injuries fall within the zone of interests that the FHA arguably protects. Hence, the City is an "aggrieved person" able to bring suit under the statute. We also hold that, to establish proximate cause under the FHA, a plaintiff must do more than show that its injuries foreseeably flowed from the alleged statutory violation. The lower court decided these cases on the theory that foreseeability is all that the statute requires, so we vacate and remand for further proceedings. I In 2013, the City of Miami brought lawsuits in federal court against two banks, Bank of America and Wells Fargo. The City's complaints charge that the Banks discriminatorily imposed more onerous, and indeed "predatory," conditions on loans made to minority borrowers than to similarly situated nonminority borrowers. App. 185-197, 350-362. Those "predatory" practices included, among others, excessively high interest rates, unjustified fees, teaser low-rate loans that overstated refinancing opportunities, large prepayment penalties, and-when default loomed-unjustified refusals to refinance or modify the loans. Id., at 225, 402. Due to the discriminatory nature of the Banks' practices, default and foreclosure rates among minority borrowers were higher than among otherwise similar white borrowers and were concentrated in minority neighborhoods. Id., at 225-232, 408-415. Higher foreclosure rates lowered property values and diminished property-tax revenue. Id., at 234, 418. Higher foreclosure rates-especially when accompanied by vacancies-also increased demand for municipal services, such as police, fire, and building and code enforcement services, all needed "to remedy blight and unsafe and dangerous conditions" that the foreclosures and vacancies generate. Id., at 238-240, 421-423. The complaints describe statistical analyses that trace the City's financial losses to the Banks' discriminatory practices. Id., at 235-237; 419-420. The District Court dismissed the complaints on the grounds that (1) the harms alleged, being economic and not discriminatory, fell outside the zone of interests the FHA protects; (2) the complaints fail to show a sufficient causal connection between the City's injuries and the Banks' discriminatory conduct; and (3) the complaints fail to allege unlawful activity occurring within the Act's 2-year statute of limitations. The City then filed amended complaints (the complaints now before us) and sought reconsideration. The District Court held that the amended complaints could solve only the statute of limitations problem. It consequently declined to reconsider the dismissals. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court. 800 F.3d 1262 (C.A.11 2015) ; 801 F.3d 1258 (C.A.11 2015). It held that the City's injuries fall within the "zone of interests," Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1388, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014), that the FHA protects. 800 F.3d, at 1274-1275, 1277 (relying on Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415 (1972) ; Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979) ; and Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982) ); 801 F.3d, at 1266-1267 (similar). It added that the complaints adequately allege proximate cause. 800 F.3d, at 1278, 801 F.3d, at 1267. And it remanded the cases while ordering the District Court to accept the City's complaints as amended. 800 F.3d, at 1286, 801 F.3d, at 1267. The Banks filed petitions for certiorari, asking us to decide whether, as the Court of Appeals had in effect held, the amended complaints satisfied the FHA's zone-of-interests and proximate-cause requirements. We agreed to do so. II To satisfy the Constitution's restriction of this Court's jurisdiction to "Cases" and "Controversies," Art. III, § 2, a plaintiff must demonstrate constitutional standing. To do so, the plaintiff must show an "injury in fact" that is "fairly traceable" to the defendant's conduct and "that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ). This Court has also referred to a plaintiff's need to satisfy "prudential" or "statutory" standing requirements. See Lexmark, 572 U.S., at ---- - ----, and n. 4, 134 S.Ct., at 1387, and n. 4. In Lexmark, we said that the label " 'prudential standing' " was misleading, for the requirement at issue is in reality tied to a particular statute. Ibid. The question is whether the statute grants the plaintiff the cause of action that he asserts. In answering that question, we presume that a statute ordinarily provides a cause of action "only to plaintiffs whose interests fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1388 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have added that "[w]hether a plaintiff comes within 'the zone of interests' is an issue that requires us to determine, using traditional tools of statutory interpretation, whether a legislatively conferred cause of action encompasses a particular plaintiff's claim." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1387 (some internal quotation marks omitted). Here, we conclude that the City's claims of financial injury in their amended complaints-specifically, lost tax revenue and extra municipal expenses-satisfy the "cause-of-action" (or "prudential standing") requirement. To use the language of Data Processing, the City's claims of injury it suffered as a result of the statutory violations are, at the least, "arguably within the zone of interests" that the FHA protects. 397 U.S., at 153, 90 S.Ct. 827 (emphasis added). The FHA permits any "aggrieved person" to bring a housing-discrimination lawsuit. 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a). The statute defines "aggrieved person" as "any person who" either "claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice" or believes that such an injury "is about to occur." § 3602(i). This Court has repeatedly written that the FHA's definition of person "aggrieved" reflects a congressional intent to confer standing broadly. We have said that the definition of "person aggrieved" in the original version of the FHA, § 810(a), 82 Stat. 85, "showed 'a congressional intention to define standing as broadly as is permitted by Article III of the Constitution.' " Trafficante, supra, at 209, 93 S.Ct. 364 (quoting Hackett v. McGuire Brothers, Inc., 445 F.2d 442, 446 (C.A.3 1971) ); see Gladstone, supra, at 109, 99 S.Ct. 1601 (similar); Havens Realty, supra, at 372, 375-376, 102 S.Ct. 1114 (similar); see also Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170, 176, 131 S.Ct. 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 694 (2011) ("Later opinions, we must acknowledge, reiterate that the term 'aggrieved' [in the FHA] reaches as far as Article III permits"); Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 165-166, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) ("[Trafficante ] held that standing was expanded to the full extent permitted under Article III by § 810(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1968"). Thus, we have held that the Act allows suits by white tenants claiming that they were deprived benefits from interracial associations when discriminatory rental practices kept minorities out of their apartment complex, Trafficante, 409 U.S., at 209-212, 93 S.Ct. 364 ; a village alleging that it lost tax revenue and had the racial balance of its community undermined by racial-steering practices, Gladstone, 441 U.S., at 110-111, 99 S.Ct. 1601 ; and a nonprofit organization that spent money to combat housing discrimination, Havens Realty, 455 U.S., at 379, 102 S.Ct. 1114. Contrary to the dissent's view, those cases did more than "sugges[t]" that plaintiffs similarly situated to the City have a cause of action under the FHA. Post, at 1308. They held as much. And the dissent is wrong to say that we characterized those cases as resting on "ill-considered dictum." Post, at 1308 (quoting Thompson, supra, at 176, 131 S.Ct. 863 ). The "dictum" we cast doubt on in Thompson addressed who may sue under Title VII, the employment discrimination statute, not under the FHA. Finally, in 1988, when Congress amended the FHA, it retained without significant change the definition of "person aggrieved" that this Court had broadly construed. Compare § 810(a), 82 Stat. 85, with § 5(b), 102 Stat. 1619-1620 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i) ) (changing "person aggrieved" to "aggrieved person" and making other minor changes to the definition). Indeed, Congress "was aware of" our precedent and "made a considered judgment to retain the relevant statutory text," Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 2507, 2519, 192 L.Ed.2d 514 (2015). See H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, p. 23 (1988) (stating that the "bill adopts as its definition language similar to that contained in Section 810 of existing law, as modified to reaffirm the broad holdings of these cases" and discussing Gladstone and Havens Realty ); cf. Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580, 98 S.Ct. 866, 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978) (Congress normally adopts our interpretations of statutes when it reenacts those statute without change). The Banks do not deny the broad reach of the words "aggrieved person" as defined in the FHA. But they do contend that those words nonetheless set boundaries that fall short of those the Constitution sets. Brief for Petitioners in No. 15-1112, p. 12 (Brief for Wells Fargo); Brief for Petitioners in No. 15-1111, pp. 19-20 (Brief for Bank of America). The Court's language in Trafficante,Gladstone, and Havens Realty, they argue, was exaggerated and unnecessary to decide the cases then before the Court. See Brief for Wells Fargo 19-23; Brief for Bank of America 27-33. Moreover, they warn that taking the Court's words literally-providing everyone with constitutional standing a cause of action under the FHA-would produce a legal anomaly. After all, in Thompson, 562 U.S., at 175-177, 131 S.Ct. 863 we held that the words " 'person claiming to be aggrieved' " in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the employment discrimination statute, did not stretch that statute's zone of interest to the limits of Article III. We reasoned that such an interpretation would produce farfetched results, for example, a shareholder in a company could bring a Title VII suit against the company for discriminatorily firing an employee. Ibid. The Banks say it would be similarly farfetched if restaurants, plumbers, utility companies, or any other participant in the local economy could sue the Banks to recover business they lost when people had to give up their homes and leave the neighborhood as a result of the Banks' discriminatory lending practices. Brief for Wells Fargo 18-19; Brief for Bank of America 22, 24-25. That, they believe, cannot have been the intent of the Congress that enacted or amended the FHA. We need not discuss the Banks' argument at length, for even if we assume for argument's sake that some form of it is valid, we nonetheless conclude that the City's financial injuries fall within the zone of interests that the FHA protects. Our case law with respect to the FHA drives that conclusion. The City's complaints allege that the Banks "intentionally targeted predatory practices at African-American and Latino neighborhoods and residents," App. 225; id., at 409 (similar). That unlawful conduct led to a "concentration" of "foreclosures and vacancies" in those neighborhoods. Id., at 226, 229, 410, 413. Those concentrated "foreclosures and vacancies" caused "stagnation and decline in African-American and Latino neighborhoods." Id., at 225, 409. They hindered the City's efforts to create integrated, stable neighborhoods. Id., at 186, 351. And, highly relevant here, they reduced property values, diminishing the City's property-tax revenue and increasing demand for municipal services. Id., at 233-234, 417. Those claims are similar in kind to the claims the Village of Bellwood raised in Gladstone. There, the plaintiff village had alleged that it was " 'injured by having [its] housing market... wrongfully and illegally manipulated to the economic and social detriment of the citizens of [the] village.' " 441 U.S., at 95, 99 S.Ct. 1601 (quoting the complaint; alterations in original). We held that the village could bring suit. We wrote that the complaint in effect alleged that the defendant-realtors' racial steering "affect[ed] the village's racial composition," "reduce[d] the total number of buyers in the Bellwood housing market," "precipitate[d] an exodus of white residents," and caused "prices [to] be deflected downward." Id., at 110, 99 S.Ct. 1601. Those circumstances adversely affected the village by, among other things, producing a "significant reduction in property values [that] directly injures a municipality by diminishing its tax base, thus threatening its ability to bear the costs of local government and to provide services." Id., at 110-111, 99 S.Ct. 1601 (emphasis added). The upshot is that the City alleges economic injuries that arguably fall within the FHA's zone of interests, as we have previously interpreted that statute. Principles of stare decisis compel our adherence to those precedents in this context. And principles of statutory interpretation require us to respect Congress' decision to ratify those precedents when it reenacted the relevant statutory text. See supra, at 1302 - 1305. III The remaining question is one of causation: Did the Banks' allegedly discriminatory lending practices proximately cause the City to lose property-tax revenue and spend more on municipal services? The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the answer is "yes" because the City plausibly alleged that its financial injuries were foreseeable results of the Banks' misconduct. We conclude that foreseeability alone is not sufficient to establish proximate cause under the FHA, and therefore vacate the judgment below. It is a " 'well established principle of [the common] law that in all cases of loss, we are to attribute it to the proximate cause, and not to any remote cause.' " Lexmark, 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1390. We assume Congress "is familiar with the common-law rule and does not mean to displace it sub silentio " in federal causes of action. Ibid. A claim for damages under the FHA-which is akin to a "tort action," Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 285, 123 S.Ct. 824, 154 L.Ed.2d 753 (2003) -is no exception to this traditional requirement. "Proximate-cause analysis is controlled by the nature of the statutory cause of action. The question it presents is whether the harm alleged has a sufficiently close connection to the conduct the statute prohibits." Lexmark, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1390. In these cases, the "conduct the statute prohibits" consists of intentionally lending to minority borrowers on worse terms than equally creditworthy nonminority borrowers and inducing defaults by failing to extend refinancing and loan modifications to minority borrowers on fair terms. The City alleges that the Banks' misconduct led to a disproportionate number of foreclosures and vacancies in specific Miami neighborhoods. These foreclosures and vacancies purportedly harmed the City, which lost property-tax revenue when the value of the properties in those neighborhoods fell and was forced to spend more on municipal services in the affected areas. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the City adequately pleaded that the Banks' misconduct proximately caused these financial injuries. 800 F.3d, at 1282. The court held that in the context of the FHA "the proper standard" for proximate cause "is based on foreseeability." Id., at 1279, 1282. The City, it continued, satisfied that element: Although there are "several links in the causal chain" between the charged discriminatory lending practices and the claimed losses, the City plausibly alleged that "none are unforeseeable." Id., at 1282. We conclude that the Eleventh Circuit erred in holding that foreseeability is sufficient to establish proximate cause under the FHA. As we have explained, proximate cause "generally bars suits for alleged harm that is 'too remote' from the defendant's unlawful conduct." Lexmark, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1390. In the context of the FHA, foreseeability alone does not ensure the close connection that proximate cause requires. The housing market is interconnected with economic and social life. A violation of the FHA may, therefore, " 'be expected to cause ripples of harm to flow' " far beyond the defendant's misconduct. Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 534, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983). Nothing in the statute suggests that Congress intended to provide a remedy wherever those ripples travel. And entertaining suits to recover damages for any foreseeable result of an FHA violation would risk "massive and complex damages litigation." Id., at 545, 103 S.Ct. 897. Rather, proximate cause under the FHA requires "some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged." Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U.S. 258, 268, 112 S.Ct. 1311, 117 L.Ed.2d 532 (1992). A damages claim under the statute "is analogous to a number of tort actions recognized at common law," Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 195, 94 S.Ct. 1005, 39 L.Ed.2d 260 (1974), and we have repeatedly applied directness principles to statutes with "common-law foundations," Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451, 457, 126 S.Ct. 1991, 164 L.Ed.2d 720 (2006). " 'The general tendency' " in these cases, " 'in regard to damages at least, is not to go beyond the first step.' " Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 1, 10, 130 S.Ct. 983, 175 L.Ed.2d 943 (2010). What falls within that "first step" depends in part on the "nature of the statutory cause of action," Lexmark, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1390, and an assessment " 'of what is administratively possible and convenient,' " Holmes, supra, at 268, 112 S.Ct. 1311. The parties have asked us to draw the precise boundaries of proximate cause under the FHA and to determine on which side of the line the City's financial injuries fall. We decline to do so. The Eleventh Circuit grounded its decision on the theory that proximate cause under the FHA is "based on foreseeability" alone. 800 F.3d, at 1282. We therefore lack the benefit of its judgment on how the contrary principles we have just stated apply to the FHA. Nor has any other court of appeals weighed in on the issue. The lower courts should define, in the first instance, the contours of proximate cause under the FHA and decide how that standard applies to the City's claims for lost property-tax revenue and increased municipal expenses. IV The judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice KENNEDY and Justice ALITO join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. These cases arise from lawsuits filed by the city of Miami alleging that residential mortgage lenders engaged in discriminatory lending practices in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The FHA prohibits "discrimination" against "any person" because of "race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin" with respect to the "sale or rental" of "a dwelling." 42 U.S.C. § 3604 ; accord, § 3605(a) ; § 3606. Miami's complaints do not allege that any defendant discriminated against it within the meaning of the FHA. Neither is Miami attempting to bring a lawsuit on behalf of its residents against whom petitioners allegedly discriminated. Rather, Miami's theory is that, between 2004 and 2012, petitioners' allegedly discriminatory mortgage-lending practices led to defaulted loans, which led to foreclosures, which led to vacant houses, which led to decreased property values, which led to reduced property taxes and urban blight. See 800 F.3d 1262, 1268 (C.A.11 2015) ; 801 F.3d 1258, 1266 (C.A.11 2015). Miami seeks damages from the lenders for reduced property tax revenues and for the cost of increased municipal services-"police, firefighters, building inspectors, debris collectors, and others"-deployed to attend to the blighted areas. 800 F.3d, at 1269, 801 F.3d, at 1263. The Court today holds that Congress intended to remedy those kinds of injuries when it enacted the FHA, but leaves open the question whether Miami sufficiently alleged that the discriminatory lending practices caused its injuries. For the reasons explained below, I would hold that Miami's injuries fall outside the FHA's zone of interests. I would also hold that, in any event, Miami's alleged injuries are too remote to satisfy the FHA's proximate-cause requirement. I A plaintiff seeking to bring suit under a federal statute must show not only that he has standing under Article III, ante, at 1302, but also that his "complaint fall[s] within the zone of interests protected by the law" he invokes, Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1386, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). The zone-of-interests requirement is "root[ed]" in the "common-law rule" providing that a plaintiff may "recover under the law of negligence for injuries caused by violation of a statute" only if "the statute 'is interpreted as designed to protect the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included, against the risk of the type of harm which has in fact occurred as a result of its violation.' " Id., at ----, n. 5, 134 S.Ct., at 1389, n. 5 (quoting W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 36, pp. 229-230 (5th ed. 1984)). We have "made clear" that "Congress is presumed to legislate against the background" of that common-law rule. Lexmark, 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1388 (internal quotation marks omitted). We thus apply it "to all statutorily created causes of action... unless it is expressly negated." Ibid. (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). "Whether a plaintiff comes within the zone of interests is an issue that requires us to determine, using traditional tools of statutory interpretation, whether a legislatively conferred cause of action encompasses a particular plaintiff's claim." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1387 (internal quotation marks omitted). A Nothing in the text of the FHA suggests that Congress intended to deviate from the zone-of-interests limitation. The statute's private-enforcement mechanism provides that only an "aggrieved person" may sue, § 3613(a)(1)(A), and the statute defines "aggrieved person" to mean someone who "claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice" or who believes he "will be injured by a discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur," §§ 3602(i)(1), (2). That language does not hint-much less expressly provide-that Congress sought to depart from the common-law rule. We have considered similar language in other statutes and reached the same conclusion. In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170, 131 S.Ct. 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 694 (2011), for example, we considered Title VII's private-enforcement provision, which provides that " 'a person claiming to be aggrieved' " may file an employment discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Id., at 173, 131 S.Ct. 863 (quoting § 2000e-5(b)). We unanimously concluded that Congress did not depart from the zone-of-interests limitation in Title VII by using that language. Id., at 175-178, 131 S.Ct. 863. And in Lexmark, we interpreted a provision of the Lanham Act that permitted "any person who believes that he or she is likely to be damaged by a defendant's false advertising" to sue. 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1388 (internal quotation marks omitted). Even when faced with the broader "any person" language, we expressly rejected the argument that the statute conferred a cause of action upon anyone claiming an Article III injury in fact. We observed that it was unlikely that "Congress meant to allow all factually injured plaintiffs to recover," and we concluded that the zone-of-interests test was the "appropriate tool for determining who may invoke the cause of action" under the statute. Id., at ----, ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1388, 1388-1389 (internal quotation marks omitted). To be sure, some language in our older precedents suggests that the FHA's zone of interests extends to the limits of Article III. See Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 209, 93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415 (1972) ; Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 109, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979) ; Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 372, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982). But we have since described that language as "ill-considered" dictum leading to "absurd consequences." Thompson, 562 U.S., at 176, 131 S.Ct. 863. And we have observed that the "holdings of those cases are compatible with the 'zone of interests' limitation" described in Thompson. Ibid. That limitation provides that a plaintiff may not sue when his "interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit." Id., at 178, 131 S.Ct. 863 (internal quotation marks omitted). It thus "exclud[es] plaintiffs who might technically be injured in an Article III sense but whose interests are unrelated to the statutory prohibitions." Ibid. B In my view, Miami's asserted injuries are "so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes" of the FHA that they fall outside the zone of interests. Here, as in any other case, the text of the FHA defines the zone of interests that the statute protects. See Lexmark, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1389. The FHA permits "[a]n aggrieved person" to sue, § 3613(a)(1)(A), if he "claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice " or believes that he "will be injured by a discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur," §§ 3602(i)(1), (2) (emphasis added). Specifically, the FHA makes it unlawful to do any of the following on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin": "refuse to sell or rent... a dwelling," § 3604(a) ; discriminate in the "terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith," § 3604(b) ; "make, print, or publish... any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination," § 3604(c) ; "represent to any person... that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available," § 3604(d) ; "induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of" certain characteristics, § 3604(e) ; or discriminate in the provision of real estate or brokerage services, §§ 3605, 3606. The quintessential "aggrieved person" in cases involving violations of the FHA is a prospective home buyer or lessee discriminated against during the home-buying or leasing process. Our cases have also suggested that the interests of a person who lives in a neighborhood or apartment complex that remains segregated (or that risks becoming segregated) as a result of a discriminatory housing practice may be arguably within the outer limit of the interests the FHA protects. See Trafficante, supra, at 211, 93 S.Ct. 364 (concluding that one purpose of the FHA was to promote "truly integrated and balanced living patterns" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Miami's asserted injuries are not arguably related to the interests the statute protects. Miami asserts that it received "reduced property tax revenues," Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner Joseph Griffin, who was on probation, had his home searched by probation officers acting without a warrant. The officers found a gun that later served as the basis of Griffin’s conviction of a state-law weapons offense. We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 1005 (1986), to consider whether this search violated the Fourth Amendment. I On September 4, 1980, Griffin, who had previously been convicted of a felony, was convicted in Wisconsin state court of resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and obstructing an officer. He was placed on probation. Wisconsin law puts probationers in the legal custody of the State Department of Health and Social Services and renders them “subject . . . to . . . conditions set by the court and rules and regulations established by the department.” Wis. Stat. § 973.10(1) (1985-1986). One of the Department’s regulations permits any probation officer to search a probationer’s home without a warrant as long as his supervisor approves and as long as there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the presence of contraband — including any item that the probationer cannot possess under the probation conditions. Wis. Admin. Code HSS §§ 328.21(4), 328.16(1) (1981). The rule provides that an officer should consider a variety of factors in determining whether “reasonable grounds” exist, among which are information provided by an informant, the reliability and specificity of that information, the reliability of the informant (including whether the informant has any incentive to supply inaccurate information), the officer’s own experience with the probationer, and the “need to verify compliance with rules of supervision and state and federal law.” HSS §328.21(7). Another regulation makes it a violation of the terms of probation to refuse to consent to a home search. HSS § 328.04(3)(k). And still another forbids a probationer to possess a firearm without advance approval from a probation officer. HSS § 328.04(3)(j). On April 5, 1983, while Griffin was still on probation, Michael Lew, the supervisor of Griffin’s probation officer, received information from a detective on the Beloit Police Department that there were or might be guns in Griffin’s apartment. Unable to secure the assistance of Griffin’s own probation officer, Lew, accompanied by another probation officer and three plainclothes policemen, went to the apartment. When Griffin answered the door, Lew told him who they were and informed him that they were going to search his home. During the subsequent search — carried out entirely by the probation officers under the authority of Wisconsin’s probation regulation — they found a handgun. Griffin was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which is itself a felony. Wis. Stat. §941.29(2) (1985-1986). He moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that no warrant was necessary and that the search was reasonable. A jury convicted Griffin of the firearms violation, and he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 126 Wis. 2d 183, 376 N. W. 2d 62 (1985). On further appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court also affirmed. It found denial of the suppression motion proper because probation diminishes a probationer’s reasonable expectation of privacy — so that a probation officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, search a probationer’s home without a warrant, and with only “reasonable grounds” (not probable cause) to believe that contraband is present. It held that the “reasonable grounds” standard of Wisconsin’s search regulation satisfied this “reasonable grounds” standard of the Federal Constitution, and that the detective’s tip established “reasonable grounds” within the meaning of the regulation, since it came from someone who had no reason to supply inaccurate information, specifically identified Griffin, and suggested a need to verify Griffin’s compliance with state law. 131 Wis. 2d 41, 52-64, 388 N. W. 2d 535, 539-544 (1986). II We think the Wisconsin Supreme Court correctly concluded that this warrantless search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. To reach that result, however, we find it unnecessary to embrace a new principle of law, as the Wisconsin court evidently did, that any search of a probationer’s home by a probation officer satisfies the Fourth Amendment as long as the information possessed by the officer satisfies a federal “reasonable grounds” standard. As his sentence for the commission of a crime, Griffin was committed to the legal custody of the Wisconsin State Department of Health and Social Services, and thereby made subject to that Department’s rules and regulations. The search of Griffin’s home satisfied the demands of the Fourth Amendment because it was carried out pursuant to a regulation that itself satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement under well-established principles. A A probationer’s home, like anyone else’s, is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that searches be “reasonable.” Although we usually require that a search be undertaken only pursuant to a warrant (and thus supported by probable cause, as the Constitution says warrants must be), see, e. g., Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 586 (1980), we have permitted exceptions when “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment). Thus, we have held that government employers and supervisors may conduct warrantless, work-related searches of employees’ desks and offices without probable cause, O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709 (1987), and that school officials may conduct warrantless searches of some student property, also without probable cause, New Jersey v. T. L. O., swpra. We have also held, for similar reasons, that in certain circumstances government investigators conducting searches pursuant to a regulatory scheme need not adhere to the usual warrant or probable-cause requirements as long as their searches meet “reasonable legislative or administrative standards.” Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 538 (1967). See New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 702-703 (1987); Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U. S. 594, 602 (1981); United States v. Biswell, 406 XJ. S. 311, 316 (1972). A State’s operation of a probation system, like its operation of a school, government office or prison, or its supervision of a regulated industry, likewise presents “special needs” beyond normal law enforcement that may justify departures from the usual warrant and probable-cause requirements. Probation, like incarceration, is “a form of criminal sanction imposed by a court upon an offender after verdict, finding, or plea of guilty.” G. Killinger, H. Kerper, & P. Cromwell, Probation and Parole in the Criminal Justice System 14 (1976); see also 18 U. S. C. § 3651 (1982 ed. and Supp. III) (probation imposed instead of imprisonment); Wis. Stat. § 973.09 (1985-1986) (same). Probation is simply one point (or, more accurately, one set of points) on a continuum of possible punishments ranging from solitary confinement in a maximum-security facility to a few hours of mandatory community service. A number of different options lie between those extremes, including confinement in a medium- or minimum-security facility, work-release programs, “halfway houses,” and probation — which can itself be more or less confining depending upon the number and severity of restrictions imposed. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. §3563 (1982 ed., Supp. III) (effective Nov. 1, 1987) (probation conditions authorized in federal system include requiring probationers to avoid commission of other crimes; to pursue employment; to avoid certain occupations, places, and people; to spend evenings or weekends in prison; and to avoid narcotics or excessive use of alcohol). To a greater or lesser degree, it is always true of probationers (as we have said it to be true of parolees) that they do not enjoy “the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only . . . conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special [probation] restrictions.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 480 (1972). These restrictions are meant to assure that the probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the community is not harmed by the probationer’s being at large. See State v. Tarrell, 74 Wis. 2d 647, 652-653, 247 N. W. 2d 696, 700 (1976). These same goals require and justify the exercise of supervision to assure that the restrictions are in fact observed. Recent research suggests that more intensive supervision can reduce recidivism, see Petersilia, Probation and Felony Offenders, 49 Fed. Probation 9 (June 1985), and the importance of supervision has grown as probation has become an increasingly common sentence for those convicted of serious crimes, see id., at 4. Supervision, then, is a “special need” of the State permitting a degree of impingement upon privacy that would not be constitutional if applied to the public at large. That permissible degree is not unlimited, however, so we next turn to whether it has been exceeded here. B In determining whether the “special needs” of its probation system justify Wisconsin’s search regulation, we must take that regulation as it has been interpreted by state corrections officials and state courts. As already noted, the Wisconsin Supreme Court — the ultimate authority on issues of Wisconsin law — has held that a tip from a police detective that Griffin “had” or “may have had” an illegal weapon at his home constituted the requisite “reasonable grounds.” See 131 Wis. 2d, at 64, 388 N. W. 2d, at 544. Whether or not we would choose to interpret a similarly worded federal regulation in that fashion, we are bound by the state court’s interpretation, which is relevant to our constitutional analysis only insofar as it fixes the meaning of the regulation. We think it clear that the special needs of Wisconsin’s probation system make the warrant requirement impracticable and justify replacement of the standard of probable cause by “reasonable grounds,” as defined by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A warrant requirement would interfere to an appreciable degree with the probation system, setting up a magistrate rather than the probation officer as the judge of how close a supervision the probationer requires. Moreover, the delay inherent in obtaining a warrant would make it more difficult for probation officials to respond quickly to evidence of misconduct, see New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S., at 340, and would reduce the deterrent effect that the possibility of expeditious searches would otherwise create, see New York v. Burger, 482 U. S., at 710; United States v. Biswell, 406 U. S., at 316. By way of analogy, one might contemplate how parental custodial authority would be impaired by requiring judicial approval for search of a minor child’s room. And on the other side of the equation — the effect of dispensing with a warrant upon the probationer: Although a probation officer is not an impartial magistrate, neither is he the police officer who normally conducts searches against the ordinary citizen. He is an employee of the State Department of Health and Social Services who, while assuredly charged with protecting the public interest, is also supposed to have in mind the welfare of the probationer (who in the regulations is called a “client,” HSS § 328.03(5)). The applicable regulations require him, for example, to “[p]rovid[e] individualized counseling designed to foster growth and development of the client as necessary,” HSS § 328.04(2)(i), and “[m]onito[r] the client’s progress where services are provided by another agency and evaluate] the need for continuation of the services,” HSS §328.04(2)(o). In such a setting, we think it reasonable to dispense with the warrant requirement. Justice Blackmun’s dissent would retain a judicial warrant requirement, though agreeing with our subsequent conclusion that reasonableness of the search does not require probable cause. This, however, is a combination that neither the text of the Constitution nor any of our prior decisions permits. While it is possible to say that Fourth Amendment reasonableness demands probable cause without a judicial warrant, the reverse runs up against the constitutional provision that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Arndt. 4. The Constitution prescribes, in other words, that where the matter is of such a nature as to require a judicial warrant, it is also of such a nature as to require probable cause. Although we have arguably come to permit an exception to that prescription for administrative search warrants, which may but do not necessarily have to be issued by courts, we have never done so for constitutionally mandated judicial warrants. There it remains true that “[i]f a search warrant be constitutionally required, the requirement cannot be flexibly interpreted to dispense with the rigorous constitutional restrictions for its issue.” Frank v. Maryland, 359 U. S. 360, 373 (1959). Justice Blackmun neither gives a justification for departure from that principle nor considers its implications for the body of Fourth Amendment law. We think that the probation regime would also be unduly disrupted by a requirement of probable cause. To take the facts of the present case, it is most unlikely that the unauthenticated tip of a police officer — bearing, as far as the record shows, no indication whether its basis was firsthand knowledge or, if not, whether the firsthand source was reliable, and merely stating that Griffin “had or might have” guns in his residence, not that he certainly had them — would meet the ordinary requirement of probable cause. But this is different from the ordinary case in two related respects: First, even more than the requirement of a warrant, a probable-cause requirement would reduce the deterrent effect of the supervisory arrangement. The probationer would be assured that so long as his illegal (and perhaps socially dangerous) activities were sufficiently concealed as to give rise to no more than reasonable suspicion, they would go undetected and uncorrected. The second difference is well reflected in the regulation specifying what is to be considered “[i]n deciding whether there are reasonable grounds to believe ... a client’s living quarters or property contain contraband,” HSS §328.21(7). The factors include not only the usual elements that a police officer or magistrate would consider, such as the detail and consistency of the information suggesting the presence of contraband and the reliability and motivation to dissemble of the informant, HSS §§328.21(7) (c), (d), but also “[ijnformation provided by the client which is relevant to whether the client possesses contraband,” and “[t]he experience of a staff member with that client or in a similar circumstance.” HSS §§ 328.21(7)(f), (g). As was true, then, in O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709 (1987), and New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325 (1985), we deal with a situation in which there is an ongoing supervisory relationship —and one that is not, or at least not entirely, adversarial— between the object of the search and the decisionmaker. In such circumstances it is both unrealistic and destructive of the whole object of the continuing probation relationship to insist upon the same degree of demonstrable reliability of particular items of supporting data, and upon the same degree of certainty of violation, as is required in other contexts. In some cases — especially those involving drugs or illegal weapons — the probation agency must be able to act based upon a lesser degree of certainty than the Fourth Amendment would otherwise require in order to intervene before a probationer does damage to himself or society. The agency, moreover, must be able to proceed on the basis of its entire experience with the probationer, and to assess probabilities in the light of its knowledge of his life, character, and circumstances. To allow adequate play for such factors, we think it reasonable to permit information provided by a police officer, whether or not on the basis of firsthand knowledge, to support a probationer search. The same conclusion is suggested by the fact that the police máy be unwilling to disclose their confidential sources to probation personnel. For the same reason, and also because it is the very assumption of the institution of probation that the probationer is in need of rehabilitation and is more likely than the ordinary citizen to violate the law, we think it enough if the information provided indicates, as it did here, only the likelihood (“had or might have guns”) of facts justifying the search. The search of Griffin’s residence was “reasonable” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it was conducted pursuant to a valid regulation governing probationers. This conclusion makes it unnecessary to consider whether, as the court below held and the State urges, any search of a probationer’s home by a probation officer is lawful when there are “reasonable grounds” to believe contraband is present. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is Affirmed. HSS § 328 was promulgated in December 1981 and became effective on January 1, 1982. Effective May 1, 1986, HSS § 328.21 was repealed and repromulgated with somewhat different numbering and without relevant substantive changes. See 131 Wis. 2d 41, 60, n. 7, 388 N. W. 2d 535, 542, n. 7 (1986). This opinion will cite the old version of § 328.21, which was in effect at the time of the search. We have recently held that prison regulations allegedly infringing constitutional rights are themselves constitutional as long as they are “ ‘reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’” O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U. S. 342, 349 (1987) (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 89 (1987)). We have no occasion in this case to decide whether, as a general matter, that test applies to probation regulations as well. If the regulation in question established a standard of conduct to which the probationer had to conform on pain of penalty — e. g., a restriction on his movements — the state court could not constitutionally adopt so unnatural an interpretation of the language that the regulation would fail to provide adequate notice. Cf. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 357-358 (1983); Lambert v. California, 355 U. S. 225, 228 (1957). That is not an issue here since, even though the petitioner would be in violation of his probation conditions (and subject to the penalties that entails) if he failed to consent to any search that the regulation authorized, see HSS §328.04(3)(k), nothing in the regulation or elsewhere required him to be advised, at the time of the request for search, what the probation officer’s “reasonable grounds” were, any more than the ordinary citizen has to be notified of the grounds for “probable cause” or “exigent circumstances” searches before they may be undertaken. In the administrative search context, we formally require that administrative warrants be supported by “probable cause,” because in that context we use that term as referring not to a quantum of evidence, but merely to a requirement of reasonableness. See, e. g., Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U. S. 307, 320 (1978); Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 528 (1967). In other contexts, however, we use “probable cause” to refer to a quantum of evidence for the belief justifying the search, to be distinguished from a lesser quantum such as “reasonable suspicion.” See O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709, 724 (1987) (plurality); New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 341-342 (1985). It is plainly in this sense that the dissent uses the term. See, e. g., post, at 881-883 (less than probable cause means “a reduced level of suspicion”). 5 See Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., supra, at 307 (“We hold that. . . the Act is unconstitutional insofar as it purports to authorize inspections without warrant or its equivalent”). The “neutral magistrate,” Camara, supra, at 532, or “neutral officer,” Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., supra, at 323, envisioned by our administrative search cases is not necessarily the “neutral judge,” post, at 887, envisioned by the dissent. It is irrelevant whether the probation authorities relied upon any peculiar knowledge which they possessed of petitioner in deciding to conduct the present search. Our discussion pertains to the reasons generally supporting the proposition that the search decision should be left to the expertise of probation authorities rather than a magistrate, and should be supportable by a lesser quantum of concrete evidence justifying suspicion than would be required to establish probable cause. That those reasons may not obtain in a particular case is of no consequence. We may note, nonetheless, that the dissenters are in error to assert as a fact that the probation authorities made no use of special knowledge in the present case, post, at 890. All we know for certain is that the petitioner’s probation officer could not be reached; whether any material contained in petitioner’s probation file was used does not appear. The dissenters speculate that the information might not have come from the police at all, “but from someone impersonating an officer.” Post, at 888. The trial court, however, found as a matter of fact that Lew received the tip on which he relied from a police officer. See 131 Wis. 2d, at 62, 388 N. W. 2d, at 543. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that finding, ibid., and neither the petitioner nor the dissenters assert that it is clearly erroneous. The dissenters assert that the search did not comport with all the governing Wisconsin regulations. There are reasonable grounds on which the Wisconsin court could find that it did. But we need not belabor those here, since the only regulation upon which we rely for our constitutional decision is that which permits a warrantless search on “reasonable grounds.” The Wisconsin Supreme Court found the requirement of “reasonable grounds” to have been met on the facts of this case and, as discussed earlier, we hold that such a requirement, so interpreted, meets constitutional minimum standards as well. That the procedures followed, although establishing “reasonable grounds” under Wisconsin law, and adequate under federal constitutional standards, may have violated Wisconsin state regulations, is irrelevant to the ease before us. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Certiorari, 347 U. S. 1012, to the Supreme Court of Alabama. Per Curiam: Judgment reversed. See Canty v. Alabama, 309 U. S. 629, and Vernon v. Alabama, 313 U. S. 547. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the Court once again with a question concerning a State’s ability to regulate the activities of natural gas companies. I Respondents ANR Pipeline Company (Pipeline) and ANR Storage Company (Storage) are wholly owned subsidiaries of American Natural Resources Company (Resources), a Delaware corporation which, like Pipeline and Storage, has its principal place of business in Michigan. Both Pipeline and Storage are natural gas companies, within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA or Act), ch. 556, 52 Stat. 821, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 717 et seq. Thus, both are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the regulatory body charged with implementation of the NGA. See § 1(b) of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 717(b).. Pipeline is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates an interstate natural gas pipeline system transporting gas, exclusively for resale, to 51 gas distribution centers in Michigan and eight other States, where the gas is either delivered to customers of Pipeline or stored for future delivery. Pipeline purchases its natural gas from producers in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, and Wyoming. Storage, which operates independently from Pipeline, is a Michigan corporation organized by Resources in 1978 to develop and operate gas storage reservoirs for nonaffiliated customers. Storage receives gas from outside Michigan and, on demand, redelivers it for sale outside that State. Storage operates four storage fields in Michigan. Petitioners are members of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC). Under Michigan’s Public Utilities Securities Act, 1909 Mich. Pub. Acts No. 144, as amended (Act 144), Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 460.301 et seq. (1967 and Supp. 1987), a public utility exercising or claiming the right to transport natural gas in Michigan for public use must obtain MPSC approval before issuing long-term securities. Act 144 directs the MPSC to approve a security issuance when it “is satisfied that the funds derived... are to be applied to lawful purposes and that the issue and amount is essential to the successful carrying out of the purposes, or that the issue of the stock fairly represents accumulated and undistributed earnings invested in capital assets and not previously capitalized.” §460.301(3). The MPSC may conduct an investigation, including an appraisal of the company’s property at the company’s expense, in deciding whether to allow the issue, §460.301(2), and it “may impose as a condition of the grant reasonable terms and conditions that [it] considers proper. ” § 460.301(3). Pipeline and Storage filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan an amended complaint against petitioners in their official capacities, seeking a declaratory judgment that the MPSC lacks jurisdiction over their security issuances and thus that they may lawfully issue and market securities without MPSC approval. Respondents argued that Act 144 was pre-empted by the NGA and that Act 144 violates the Commerce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The District Court concluded that Act 144 was neither preempted by the federal regulatory scheme nor in violation of the Commerce Clause. 627 F. Supp. 923 (WD Mich. 1985). On the pre-emption issue, the court concluded that “compliance with both federal and state regulations is not a physical impossibility, and Act 144 does not stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Id., at 930. As to the Commerce Clause, the court concluded that Act 144 was “an evenhanded and relatively limited state regulation which, as applied to [respondents], has historically had an indirect and minimal effeet on interstate commerce,” while serving legitimate local interests. 627 F. Supp., at 933. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that both the pre-emptive effect of the federal regulatory scheme and the Commerce Clause bar application of Act 144 to respondents. 801 F. 2d 228 (1986). The Court of Appeals concluded that Act 144 was pre-empted because, by omitting any requirement of advance approval of the issuance of securities “in an otherwise ‘comprehensive’ regulatory scheme, Congress has implicitly determined that the States should not impose such regulations,” 801 F. 2d, at 233-234, and because of the possibility of a conflict between federal and state regulation of natural gas company projects and financing plans, id., at 235-236. Furthermore, the court reasoned, inasmuch as “the burdens of expense, delay, and administrative hassle of ‘advance approval’ securities regulation far outweigh the benefits, if any, of Michigan’s interests in protecting consumers and investors... Act 144 unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce.” Id., at 238. Because of a conflict between the views of the Sixth Circuit and those of the Michigan Supreme Court set forth in Michigan Gas Storage Co. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 405 Mich. 376, 275 N. W. 2d 457 (1979), we granted certiorari to decide whether Michigan may require respondents to obtain MPSC approval before issuing and marketing securities. II The circumstances in which federal law pre-empts state regulation are familiar. See Arkansas Elec. Coop. Corp. v. Arkansas Public Serv. Comm’n, 461 U. S. 375, 383 (1983). See also Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141, 152-154 (1982). A pre-emption question requires an examination of congressional intent. Id., at 152. Of course, Congress explicitly may define the extent to which its enactments pre-empt state law. See, e. g., Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85, 95-96 (1983). In the absence of explicit statutory language, however, Congress implicitly may indicate an intent to occupy a given field to the exclusion of state law. Such a purpose properly may be inferred where the pervasiveness of the federal regulation precludes supplementation by the States, where the federal interest in the field is sufficiently dominant, or where “the object sought to be obtained by the federal law and the character of obligations imposed by it... reveal the same purpose.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947). Finally, even where Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation in a particular field, state law is pre-empted when it actually conflicts with federal law. Such a conflict will be found “‘when it is impossible to comply with both state and. federal law, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress, Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941).’” California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U. S. 572, 581 (1987), quoting Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 248 (1984). In this case we conclude that Act 144 regulates in a field the NGA has occupied to the exclusion of state law, and that it therefore is pre-empted. Ill A The NGA long has been recognized as a “comprehensive scheme of federal regulation of ‘all wholesales of natural gas in interstate commerce.’” Northern Natural Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm’n of Kansas, 372 U. S. 84, 91 (1963), quoting Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672, 682 (1954). The NGA confers upon FERC ex-elusive jurisdiction over the transportation and sale of natural gas in interstate commerce for resale. Northern Natural Gas Co., 372 U. S., at 89. FERC exercises authority over the rates and facilities of natural gas companies used in this transportation and sale through a variety of powers. Sections 4, 5, and 7 of the NGA, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 717c, 717d, and 717f, give FERC a number of tools for examining and controlling the issuance of securities of natural gas companies in the exercise of its comprehensive authority. First, in exercising its authority to determine a “just and reasonable” rate for the transportation or sale of natural gas subject to its jurisdiction, FERC may conduct hearings and undertake a detailed examination of a company. § 4 of the NGA, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 717c. For example, to calculate a reasonable rate of return on invested capital, FERC examines a company’s capital structure (the percentages of its capital that come from debt, common stock, and preferred stock), establishes the rate of return allowable on each type of capital, and determines an overall rate of return as a weighted average, in accordance with the amount of each kind of capital. Public Service Comm’n of New York v. FERC, 259 U. S. App. D. C. 86, 96, 813 F. 2d 448, 458 (1987). Thus, a natural gas company’s capital structure is related directly to the rates FERC allows it to charge. When a company’s “equity ratio moves beyond generally accepted limits,” however, FERC may calculate a company’s rates on an imputed “reasonable capital structure” rather than on the actual structure. Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas Co., 38 FERC ¶ 61,251, p. 61,849, aff’d in relevant part on rehearing, 40 FERC ¶ 61,244, pp. 61,813-61,816 (1987). Thus, FERC exercises its ratemaking authority to limit the burden on ratepayers of abnormally high equity ratios. See, e. g., Tarpon Transmission Co., 41 FERC ¶ 61,044 (1987). In addition, this power effectively permits FERC to control, albeit indirectly, a natural gas company’s capital structure. FERC’s power to prevent an overcapitalized company from financing its equity through inflated rates presumably acts as a strong deterrent to the development of such a capital structure. Second, a natural gas company must obtain from FERC a “certificate of public convenience and necessity” before it constructs, extends, acquires, or operates any facility for the transportation or sale of natural gas in interstate commerce. § 7(c)(1)(A) of the NGA, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 717f (c)(1)(A). FERC will grant the certificate only if it finds the company able and willing to undertake the project in compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal regulatory scheme. § 7(e), as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 717f(e). FERC may attach “to the issuance of the certificate and to the exercise of the rights granted thereunder such reasonable terms and conditions as the public convenience and necessity may require.” Ibid. In fulfilling this statutory duty, FERC has promulgated extensive regulations that require a statement of the plans for financing a proposed facility and a detailed description of any proposed securities issuance. 18 CFR § 157.14(14) (1987). FERC, like the Federal Power Commission, its predecessor, has not hesitated to use its certification power to ensure that a project is financed in accordance with the public interest. Third, FERC has various powers and obligations that both allow and require it to protect against the deleterious effects of ill-considered or improper securities issuances in this area. For example, officers and directors of natural gas companies are prohibited from profiting from the company’s securities issues. See § 12, 15 U. S. C. § 717k. No company may abandon any service or facility without FERC approval, including a finding by FERC that either the available gas supply is depleted, or “the present or future public convenience or necessity permit such abandonment.” § 7(b), 15 U. S. C. § 717f(b). A company must keep its accounts in accordance with FERC’s Uniform System of Accounts and must submit those accounts for review as FERC deems necessary. §§ 8 and 10, 15 U. S. C. §§ 717g and 717i; 18 CFR pt. 201 (1987). Finally, FERC has the authority to examine and to change “any rule, regulation, practice, or contract affecting [rates that] is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential.” § 5(a), 15 U. S. C. § 717d(a). Although the NGA gives FERC these substantial powers and obligations, it is also true, as petitioners remind us, that FERC is not expressly authorized to regulate the issuance of securities by natural gas companies. Of course, if such express authority were granted, pre-emption would be more apparent, given the comprehensive nature of FERC’s authority. In the absence of an express provision, however, we must examine whether the preissuance review of securities in which Michigan engages amounts to a regulation in the field of gas transportation and sales for resale that Congress intended FERC to occupy. B As an initial matter, respondents argue that Act 144 is preempted by the NGA because “[sjecurities issuances used to finance the interstate sale and transportation of natural gas were clearly beyond the power of the states to control in 1938.” Brief for Respondents 12. They premise this argument on this Court’s statements that Congress intended, by enacting the NGA, to cover areas of natural gas regulation that the States could not reach under the Court’s “dormant” Commerce Clause decisions. See, e. g., Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of Indiana, 332 U. S. 507, 514-516 (1947) (NGA covers sales for resale by interstate carriers; States regulate direct sales to consumers even though made by interstate carriers). Thus, if the Commerce Clause barred the States from a certain method of regulation when the NGA was enacted in 1938, respondents argue, that type of regulation was covered by the NGA and is now pre-empted. Our inquiry, however, is not so easily answered. Even if Commerce Clause jurisprudence would have barred Act 144’s regulation at the time of the enactment of the NGA, an issue never directly settled by the Court, that would not decide this case. The authorities on which respondents rely state only what is now well settled: Congress occupied the field of matters relating to wholesale sales and transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce. See, e. g., Illinois Gas Co. v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., 314 U. S. 498, 506-507 (1942). The question remains, however, whether Act 144 regulates within this exclusively federal domain. Furthermore, in the absence of an express statement in the NGA of an intent to pre-empt this kind of state law, respondents’ syllogism may be flawed. “To the extent that Congress sought to freeze its perception of [the scope of constitutionally permissible state regulation] into law... it did so only as a means to accomplishing the end of workable federal regulation, not as an end in itself.” Arkansas Elec. Coop. Corp. v. Arkansas Public Serv. Comm’n, 461 U. S., at 384, n. 8. If Congress did not intend a particular kind of federal regulation, pre-empting state regulation of that kind would not necessarily have served Congress’ purpose. Ibid. An intent to pre-empt state regulation thus cannot be inferred from the mere fact that States were precluded from such regulation at the time of the NGA’s enactment. Similarly, petitioners’ reliance on Congress’ subsequent failure to enact proposed legislation that would have given FERC explicit authority to regulate the issuance of securities of natural gas companies deserves only passing mention. This Court generally is reluctant to draw inferences from Congress’ failure to act. See, e. g., American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 387 U. S. 397, 416-418 (1967); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 381, n. 11 (1969). Indeed, those Members of Congress who did not support these bills may have been as convinced by testimony that the NGA already provided “broad and complete... jurisdiction and control over the issuance of securities” as by arguments that the matter was best left to the States. See Hearings on H. R. 5306 before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 53 (1950). Furthermore, even if, in enacting the NGA, Congress had decided to deny FERC access to a particular regulatory tool, it would not necessarily follow that Congress intended to allow the States the use of that tool. Congress may have determined that this particular form of regulation simply should not be employed. That authoritative federal determination would have full pre-emptive force. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. State Oil and Gas Bd. of Mississippi, 474 U. S. 409, 422 (1986). C We turn then, to the crux of the issue: whether Act 144 is a regulation of the rates and facilities of natural gas companies used in transportation and sale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce. Since we find that it is, we conclude that it is pre-empted. As noted earlier, Act 144 allows the MPSC to examine a security issuance of a natural gas company to determine whether it is “to be applied to lawful purposes and... is essential to the successful carrying out of the purposes, [or] represents accumulated and undistributed earnings invested in capital assets and not previously capitalized.” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 460.301(3) (Supp. 1987). The Michigan Supreme Court has authoritatively construed Act 144 as designed to protect investors in the gas company’s securities and to protect ratepayers. Attorney General v. MPSC, 412 Mich. 385, 402, 316 N. W. 2d 187, 193 (1982). By guarding against the “evils and injurious effects on the public of over-capitalization,” Indiana & Michigan Power Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 405 Mich. 400, 410, 275 N. W. 2d 450, 453 (1979), Act 144 both protects investors and ensures “efficient and uninterrupted service at reasonable rates.” Ibid. It is our view, however, that when applied to natural gas companies, Act 144 amounts to a regulation of rates and facilities, a field occupied by federal regulation. The objectives sought by Act 144 are the same as those sought by the NGA. Petitioners argue that, without Act 144, a company could take on so much debt through securities issuances that it would lack the resources to maintain its Michigan facilities properly. This could threaten the supply of gas to Michigan consumers, petitioners argue, lead to a rate increase, or hurt investors in the company. In another scenario, a company might take on more equity than it needs, requiring it to charge higher rates (because equity usually requires a higher rate of return). Petitioners also explain that Act 144 protects against overcapitalization in the sense of a lack of correlation between a company’s capital stock and the value of its property. An imbalance in this respect, petitioners argue, could also threaten the supply of gas at reasonable rates. Each of these uses of Act 144, however, is an attempt to regulate matters within FERC’s exclusive jurisdiction. By-keeping a natural gas company from raising its equity levels above a certain point, Michigan seeks to ensure that the company will charge only what Michigan considers to be a “reasonable rate.” This is regulation of rates. The other aim of Act 144, seeking to ensure that a company is financed in a way that will allow proper maintenance of its facilities and continuance of its services, for the benefit of both ratepayers and investors, also falls within FERC’s exclusive purview since those facilities are a critical part of the transportation of natural gas and sale for resale in interstate commerce. In short, the things Act 144 regulation is directed at, the control of rates and facilities of natural gas companies, are precisely the things over which FERC has comprehensive authority. Of course, every state statute that has some indirect effect on rates and facilities of natural gas companies is not preempted. Cf. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724, 753-756 (1985). Act 144’s effect, however, is not “indirect.” In this case we are presented with a state law whose central purpose is to regulate matters that Congress intended FERC to regulate. Not only is such regulation the function of the federal regulatory scheme, but the NGA has equipped FERC adequately to address the precise concerns Act 144 purports to manage. As reviewed above, FERC can control potential instances of overcapitalization, and its effects on both ratepayers and investors, by its regulation of rates. To the extent that Act 144 is directed at “overcapitalization” in the sense of a lack of correlation between a company’s capital stock and the value of its property, FERC directly monitors the same matter through its accounting requirements. As to natural gas companies that threaten the continued supply of gas by seeking to finance their operations through excessive debt, FERC may prevent such problems through its certification power. Indeed, as discussed above, FERC’s "detailed examination of a company’s finances includes review of security issuances involved in financing new facilities. In addition, FERC has its power to prevent abandonments. Finally, FERC’s authority to regulate and fix practices affecting rates allows the agency to address directly any unduly leveraged, unduly risky, or unduly capitalized investments. Thus, while the NGA does not expressly grant FERC preissuance authority over the securities of natural gas companies, FERC achieves the regulatory ends of such review with regard to rates and facilities through the exercise of its express regulatory responsibilities. D Our conclusion that Act 144 seeks to regulate a field that the NGA has occupied also is supported by the imminent possibility of collision between Act 144 and the NGA. See Northern Natural Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm’n of Kansas, 372 U. S., at 91-93; Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 751 (1981). If the MPSC ever denied a natural gas company authority to issue a security under Act 144 for a FERC-approved project, the disagreement between state and federal authorities over the wisdom of the project and its proposed financing would interfere with the federal regulatory scheme. Furthermore, any state-ordered alteration in a company’s capital structure would impinge on the federal ratemaking authority. When a state regulation “affect[s] the ability of [FERC] to regulate comprehensively... the transportation and sale of natural gas, and to achieve the uniformity of regulation which was an objective of the Natural Gas Act” or presents the “prospect of interference with the federal regulatory power,” then the state law may be pre-empted even though “collision between the state and federal regulation may not be an inevitable consequence.” Northern Natural Gas Co., 372 U. S., at 91-92. Although hypothetical conflicts will not always show an intent to pre-empt state authority, see Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 237 (1947), this “imminent possibility” further demonstrates the NGA’s complete occupation of the field that Act 144 seeks to regulate. We therefore conclude that the MPSC regulation of respondents through Act 144 impinges on a field that the federal regulatory scheme has occupied and, consequently, that Act 144 is pre-empted. IV Because we have concluded that Act 144 is pre-empted by the NGA, we need not decide whether, absent federal occupation. of the field, Act 144 violates the Commerce Clause. See Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. State Oil and Gas Bd. of Mississippi, 474 U. S., at 425. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. It is so ordered. Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. “ ‘Natural-gas company’ means [an individual or a corporation] engaged in the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, or the sale in interstate commerce of such gas for resale.” §§ 2(6) and (1) of the NGA, 15 U. S. C. §§ 717a(6) and (1). Petitioners argued below that Storage was not a natural gas company within the meaning of the NGA, contending that the storage of gas constitutes neither the transportation nor the sale of gas in interstate commerce. Both courts below rejected this argument, see 627 F. Supp. 923, 925-926 (WD Mich. 1985), and 801 F. 2d 228, 230, n. 3 (CA6 1986), reasoning that “transportation” includes storage. “‘Underground gas storage facilities are a necessary and integral part of the operation of piping gas from the area of production to the area of consumption.’ ” Ibid., quoting Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Exclusive Gas Storage Easement, 776 F. 2d 125, 129 (CA6 1985), and 578 F. Supp. 930, 933 (ND Ohio 1983). We agree. Petitioners, in any event, do not press the point here. By the NGA, “Congress undertook to establish federal regulation over most of the wholesale transactions of electric and gas utilities engaged in interstate commerce, and created the Federal Power Commission... (now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)... to carry out that task.” Arkansas Elec. Coop. Corp. v. Arkansas Public Serv. Comm’n, 461 U. S. 375, 378 (1983). Act 144 provides in relevant part: “Sec. 1. (1)... [A] corporation, association, or individual exercising or claiming the right to carry or transport natural gas for public use, directly or indirectly,... by or through a pipeline or engaged in the business of piping or transporting natural gas for public use, directly or indirectly, or engaged in the business of purchasing natural gas for distribution may issue stocks, bonds, notes, or other evidences of indebtedness payable at periods of more than 12 months after the date of issuance, if necessary for the acquisition of property, the construction, completion, extension, or improvement of facilities or for the improvement or maintenance of service or for the discharge or lawful refunding of obligations and may issue stock to represent accumulated earnings invested in capital assets and not previously capitalized, if the Michigan public service commission issues an order authorizing the issue and the amount of the issue, and states that in the opinion of the commission the use of the capital or property to be acquired to be secured by the issue of the stock, bonds, notes, or other evidences of indebtedness, is reasonably required for the purposes of the person, corporation, or association, or that the issue of the stock fairly represents accumulated and undistributed earnings invested in capital assets and not previously capitalized. Approval of securities does not presume that the projects to be constructed or property to be acquired will be included in the company’s rate base. “(2) A person, corporation, or association desiring authority to issue stocks, bonds, notes, or other evidences of indebtedness shall make written application to the commission in the form as the commission requires. After receiving the application, the commission, for the purpose of determining whether the commission should grant the authority, may make an inquiry or investigation, hold hearings, and examine witnesses^ books, papers, documents, or contracts the commission considers of importance in enabling it to reach a determination. An interested person, including municipalities and organizations whose membership consists of a substantial number of ratepayers within the service area of the utility, shall have the right to intervene as provided in the rules of the commission.... “(3) If from the application filed and other information obtained from the investigation authorized in this act the commission is satisfied that the funds derived from the issue of stocks, bonds, or notes are to be applied to lawful purposes and that the issue and amount is essential to the successful carrying out of the purposes, or that the issue of the stock fairly represents accumulated and undistributed earnings invested in capital assets and not previously capitalized, the commission shall grant authority to make the issue. In granting the authority, the commission may impose as a condition of the grant reasonable terms and conditions that the commission considers proper. “(4) A person, corporation, or association may issue notes for lawful purposes, payable at periods of not more than 24 months, without authority from the commission; but the notes shall not in whole or in part, be refunded by an issue of stock or bonds or by an evidence of indebtedness running for more than 12 months without the consent of the commission. “(5) This act shall apply to stock, shares, bonds, or notes issued to or taken by the incorporators or their agents, assigns, or trustees of a corporation or association in the first instance, and shall also apply to stock, bonds, or notes issued to or taken by the stockholders of the corporation or association, their agents, assigns, or trustees, after the first instance. “(8) This act shall not apply to a person, corporation, or association which is engaged in the business of carrying, transporting, piping, purchasing for distribution, or selling natural gas into this state, which derives less than 5% of its consolidated gross revenues from all of its operations from natural gas operations in this state, and which does not offer residential natural gas service to the general public under rules promulgated by the Michigan public service commission.” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §460.301 (Supp. 1987). Subsection (8) of Act 144 provides, however, see n. 3, supra, that the Michigan statute does not apply to a natural gas company that “derives less than 5% of its consolidated gross revenues from all of its operations from natural gas operations in [Michigan].” The parties agreed that the District Court should decide the case on the basis of a stipulation of facts, an appendix thereto, respondents’ answers to three sets of interrogatories, and respondents’ replies to two sets of requests for admissions. 627 F. Supp. 923 (WD Mich. 1985). The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), 92 Stat. 3351, 15 U. S. C. § 3301 et seq., did not compromise the comprehensive nature of federal regulatory authority over interstate gas transactions. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. State Oil and Gas Bd. of Mississippi, 474 U. S. 409, 420-421 (1986). See Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U. S. 571, 580 (1981). The enactment of the NGPA reflected a congressional belief that a different system of natural gas pricing was needed to balance supply and demand. Transcontinental Gas, 474 U. S., at 421. The changes the NGPA wrought in FERC’s authority have no bearing on the outcome of this case. This required disclosure includes: “(i) A detailed description of applicant’s outstanding and proposed securities and liabilities.... “(ii) The manner in which applicant proposes to dispose of securities... ; the persons, if known, to whom they will be sold... and if not known, the class or classes of such persons. “(iii) A statement showing for each proposed issue, by total amount and by unit, the estimated sale price and estimated net proceeds to the applicant. “(vi) Statement of anticipated cash flow, including provision during the period of construction and the first 3 full years of operation of proposed facilities for interest requirements, dividends, and capital retirements. “(vii) Statement showing, over the life of each issue, the annual amount of securities which applicant expects to retire through operation of a sinking fund or other extinguishment of the obligation. “(viii) A balance sheet and income statement (12 months) of most recent date available. “(ix) Comparative pro forma balance sheets and income statements for the period of construction and each of the first 3 full years of operation, giving effect to the proposed construction and proposed financing of the project. “(x) Conformed copies of all agreements, contracts, mortgages, deeds of trust, indentures, agreements to advance materials or supplies or render services in return for applicant’s securities, underwriting agreements, and any other agreements or documents of a similar nature. “(xi) Conformed copies of all reports, letters, or other documents, submitted by applicant to underwriters, insurance companies, or others regarding financing, including business studies, forecasts of earnings, and other similar financial or accounting reports, statements, or documents. “(xii) Conformed copies of all applications and supporting exhibits, registration statements, or other similar submittals, if any, to the Securities and Exchange Commission, including all supplements, changes or modifications of the above. “(xiii) Any additional data and information upon which applicant proposes to rely in showing the adequacy and availability to it of resources for financing its proposed project.” 18 CFR § 157.14(14) (1987). See Trailblazer Pipeline Co., 18 FERC ¶ 61,244, p. 61,503 (1982) (certificate “conditioned on applicants’ waiver of their right to apply for the recovery of their equity investment in this project should it fail”); Midwestern Gas Transmission Co., 21 F. P. C. 653, 656 (1959) (certificate issued on condition that company pay no dividends on common stock until interim notes were converted into preferred stock, or total long-term debt was reduced to 75% or less of total capitalization). Each of these opinions was amended on rehearing in ways not relevant here. See 23 FERC ¶ 62,355 (1983), 26 FERC ¶ 61,068 (1984), and 34 FERC ¶ 62,016 (1986) relating to Trailblazer, and 30 F. P. C. 759 (1963) and 30 F. P. C. 1313 (1963) relating to Midwestern. See, e. g., as introduced, H. R. 5306 and S. 2746, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949); S. 1880, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., § 3 (1955). It is perhaps worthy of note that the purported purposes of Act 144, as applied to respondents, appear highly artificial at best. Storage does not serve any Michigan consumers. Thus, it is hard to see what effect regulation of Storage could have on the supply of gas at reasonable rates to Michigan consumers. As to investors, since respondents issue their securities on international and national financial markets, Michigan investors are involved with these issuances only to the extent they operate and invest through these markets. Thus, even petitioners must concede that Michigan investors probably will never own more than a small percentage of respondents’ outstanding securities. Of course, one area FERC does not exclusively control is “securities regulation” in the traditional sense of the term, i. e., protection of investors from fraudulent or Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

J

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. Under §§56 and 57(a)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. §§56, 57(a)(8) (1976 ed.), a taxpayer must pay a “minimum tax” on the excess of the allowable depletion deduction for an interest in a mineral deposit over the taxpayer’s adjusted basis for that interest. The question presented here is whether the term “adjusted basis,” as used in § 57(a)(8), includes certain depreciable drilling and development costs identified in § 1.612-4(c)(l) of the Treasury Department regulations. We hold that the term does not cover such costs. I In 1981 and 1982, respondents William F. and Lola E. Hill were in the oil and gas exploration and production business, and, on their federal income tax returns for those respective years, they deducted $439,884 and $371,636 for depletion with respect to their interests in oil and gas deposits. Under 26 U. S. C. § 57(a)(8) (1976 ed.), the excess of the allowable depletion deduction for each of the deposit interests over the interest’s “adjusted basis” is an “ite[m] of tax preference” on which a taxpayer must pay a “minimum tax” for the tax year in question. See § 56(a). In determining the adjusted bases of their deposit interests, the Hills included not only the unrecovered portions of the amounts they originally paid to purchase the interests, but also the unrecovered costs of depreciable tangible items (machinery, tools, pipes, and so forth) used to exploit the deposits. Having thus reduced the amount of each item of tax preference under § 57(a)(8), they calculated and paid minimum taxes on those items of $29,812 for 1981 and $26,736 for 1982. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disputed the inclusion of the tangible costs in the deposits’ adjusted bases, and assessed a larger minimum tax based on their exclusion. The Hills paid the resulting respective deficiencies of $30,963 and $18,733, and filed a refund claim, which the Commissioner denied. The taxpayers then sued the United States, petitioner here, for a refund in the Claims Court, which granted summary judgment in their favor. 21 Cl. Ct. 713 (1990). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. 945 F. 2d 1529 (1991). Because of the importance of the issue to the federal fisc, we granted certiorari. 503 U. S. 1004 (1992). We now reverse. 1 — 1 An oil and gas producer cannot ordinarily depreciate or otherwise recover (before disposition) his investment in land'on which he drills wells because the process of producing his taxable income does not wear out or use up the land. See, e. g., Treas. Reg. §1.167(a)-2 (disallowing a depreciation deduction for “land apart from the improvements or physical development added to it”). Part of the purchase price of a fee simple interest in the land, however, represents investment in the right to extract any oil and gas from subsurface deposits, which (unlike the land) are “wasting assets,” gradually depleted as the minerals are removed. An owner of such wasting assets, according to basic income tax theory, should accordingly be allowed a “reasonable allowance for depletion,” 26 U. S. C. § 611(a) (1976 ed.), “to compensate [him] for the part exhausted in production, so that when the minerals are gone, the owner’s capital and his capital assets remain unimpaired.” Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Commissioner, 380 U. S. 624, 631 (1965). To a degree, however, practice and theory have drifted apart. The Code and associated Treasury Department regulations require taxpayers to calculate depletion allowances by whichever of two methods produces the larger deduction for the current taxable year. Treas. Reg. §-1.611 — 1(a)(1); see also 26 U. S. C. § 613(a) (1976 ed.) (“In no case shall the allowance for depletion under section 611 be less than it would be if computed without reference to this section [concerning' percentage depletion]”). The first method, “cost depletion,” remains firmly moored to the rationale articulated in Paragon Jewel. Under that method, the taxpayer estimates the number of recoverable units in his mineral deposit, and deducts an appropriate portion of the deposit’s adjusted basis for each unit extracted and sold. See Treas. Reg. §§ 1.611-2, 1.612-1. When the sum of prior deductions equals the cost or other basis of the deposit, plus allowable capital additions, “[n]o further deductions for cost depletion shall be allowed.” Treas. Reg. § 1.611 — 2(b)(2). The second method, “percentage depletion,” has no such ties. It generously allows the taxpayer extracting minerals from a deposit to deduct a specified percentage of his gross income, even when his prior depletion deductions have exceeded his investment in the deposit. See 26 U. S. C. § 613 (1976 ed. and Supp. V); Treas. Reg. § 1.613-1. For the tax years at issue, percentage depletion produced the larger deduction for the Hills, and they accordingly calculated their depletion allowance according to that method. For those tax years, however, percentage depletion’s gleam is dimmed by the minimum tax. Section 57(a)(8) of the Code requires a taxpayer to calculate as a “tax preference” “[w]ith respect to each [interest in a mineral deposit], the excess of the deduction for depletion allowable under section 611 for the taxable year over the adjusted basis of the [mineral deposit interest] at the end of the taxable year (determined without regard to the depletion deduction for the taxable year).” In turn, §56 of the Code requires a taxpayer to pay an extra minimum tax of 15% on the amount by which the sum of the enumerated tax-preference items in § 57(a) exceeds the specific deductions permitted by §56. Because the amount subject to the extra tax is reduced dollar for dollar by every outlay that can be added to the adjusted basis of the mineral deposit interest, a taxpayer would like as long a list of eligible outlays as possible. In this case the dispute is about the inclusion in the adjusted basis of certain tangible drilling and development costs, as defined by the Treasury Regulations implementing §§ 263(c) and 612 of the Code. Section 263(c) grants taxpayers an option to deduct against current income certain “intangible drilling and development costs.” The regulations limit the costs recoverable under that option by distinguishing “intangible costs” from costs for “capital items,” which the parties refer to as “tangible costs”: “The option with respect to intangible drilling and development costs does not apply to expenditures by which the taxpayer acquires tangible property ordinarily considered as having a salvage value. Examples of such items are the costs of the actual materials in those structures which are constructed in the wells and on the property, and the cost of drilling tools, pipe, casing, tubing, tanks, engines, boilers, machines, etc.... These are capital items and are returnable through depreciation.” Treas. Reg. § 1.612-4(c)(l). It is the cost of such capital items as these, to the extent that they have not already been recovered through depreciation, that the Hills would like to add to the bases of their mineral deposit interests for purposes of calculating the amount of their percentage depletion deductions subject to the minimum tax. Ill The taxpayers enter the race with a handicap. As we have noted, see n. 4, supra, § 57(a)(8) defines the “property” with which it is concerned by reference to §614, which speaks in terms of the adjusted basis of “each separate interest owned by the taxpayer in each mineral deposit.” 26 U. S. C. § 614(a) (1976 ed). A regulation defines “mineral deposit” as “minerals in place,” Treas. Reg. § 1.611-l(d)(4), while a neighboring regulation defines another term, “mineral enterprise,” to include “the mineral deposit or deposits and improvements, if any, used in mining or in the production of oil and gas,” Treas. Reg. § 1.611-l(d)(3) (emphasis added). Because these regulatory definitions were well established at the time Congress passed § 57(a)(8), see 25 Fed. Reg. 11796 (1960); Pub. L. 91-172, §301, 83 Stat. 580, 582, we think it reasonable to assume that Congress relied on the accepted distinction between them in its reference to “mineral deposit” as contained in §614. Thus the definitional scheme suggests strongly that the “property” we are concerned with in § 67(a)(8) excludes just those improvements that the Hills wish to treat as part of the property’s adjusted basis. They assert, however, (and the Government does not dispute) that the term “mineral enterprise” occurs in only that one operative provision in the regulations, Treas. Reg. § 1.611-l(d)(4), which concerns the allocation of a portion of the cost of a mineral enterprise to a mineral deposit or deposits. On that basis, the Hills argue that the term has the limited function of “assisting] in identifying depletable and depreciable costs when an operating mineral property is acquired as a unit.” Brief for Respondents 18, n. 21. Consistently with that view, they note, a regulation implementing § 57(a)(8) directs us to “see section 1016 and the regulations thereunder... [f]or the determination of the adjusted basis of the property.” Treas. Reg. § 1.57-l(h)(3). The computation of adjusted basis under 26 U. S. C. § 1016 (1976 ed. and Supp. V), they argue, is independent of the definition and function of “mineral enterprise” in the §611 regulations; thus, the implications of this term’s definition do not extend to the calculation at issue in this case. We agree that § 1016 is the proper place to look for the rules concerning adjustment of basis; but we conclude that the computation of adjusted basis under §1016 is wholly predicated on, rather than independent of, an understanding of “mineral deposit” as distinct from “improvements” within the meaning of the regulations under §611. Section 1016 is one of a number of general provisions that together determine the amount of gain or loss a taxpayer must recognize when he sells or otherwise disposes of any type of property. Section 1001(a) provides the basic rule: gain or loss is determined by subtracting “adjusted basis” from “amount realized.” Section 1011(a) defines “adjusted basis” as “basis (determined under section 1012 [or other parts of the Code]), adjusted as provided in section 1016.” Section 1016 provides the rules for making “[adjustments to basis.” The taxpayers, acknowledging the centrality of §1016, seize on the last phrase of a regulation addressing that section: “The cost or other basis shall be properly adjusted for any expenditure... or other item, properly chargeable to capital account, including the cost of improvements and betterments made to the property.” Treas. Reg. § 1.1016-2(a). The ordinary meanings of the terms “improvements” and “betterments,” the Hills say, include all valuable additions to property that are more than mere repairs; the tangible costs that they have incurred to exploit their mineral deposits increase the value of those deposits, and in any case are specifically referred to in the regulations implementing §611 as “improvements,” see Treas. Reg. § 1.611-5; therefore, those costs should be included in the adjusted basis of the mineral deposit for purposes of § 1016. The Hills’ chosen passage, however, cannot carry the weight they ask it to bear. The purpose of the phrase “including the cost of improvements and betterments made to the property” in Treas. Reg. § 1.1016 — 2(a) is not to provide guidance in particular cases as to whether, for tax accounting purposes, an expense should be added to the basis of an existing “property,” or treated as a separate “property” of its own. Rather, it is to ensure coordination of §1016 with § 263, the Code section from which the term “improvements and betterments” (which should probably be read as a unit) is borrowed. Section 263(a)(1) provides that an expenditure may not currently be deducted from income if it is “paid out for new buildings or for permanent improvements or better-ments made to increase the value of any property or estate.” 26 U. S. C. § 263(a)(1) (1976 ed. and Supp. V). We have said that “[t]he purpose of § 263 is to reflect the basic principle that a capital expenditure may not be deducted from current income. It serves to prevent a taxpayer from utilizing currently a deduction properly attributable, through amortization, to later tax years when the capital asset becomes income producing.” Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U. S. 1, 16 (1974). In turn, inclusion of the term “improvements and betterments” in Treas. Reg. § 1.1016-2(a) ensures the fulfillment of §263’s implicit promise: If a taxpayer cannot deduct an expenditure from current income because it has been deemed an “improvement or betterment” to property, he will be able to recover it later, either through a form of cost recovery such as depreciation or depletion, or upon sale as a deduction from the amount realized. Thus it is not by deciphering particular terms in the regulations accompanying § 1016 that the question in this case is answered, but by relying on the basic principles embodied in §1016’s directives. For our purposes, the most important mandate is found in § 1016(a)(2), which requires a taxpayer to subtract from his original basis in the property sold or exchanged “not less than the amount allowable [for exhaustion, wear and tear, obsolescence, amortization, and depletion] under this subtitle or prior income tax laws.” In other words, whether or not the taxpayer ever took a depreciation, amortization, or depletion deduction with respect to the item he is selling, he must, for purposes of §1016, determine whether such deductions were allowable with respect to that item, and reduce his basis by at least that allowable amount. To follow this directive, the taxpayer must determine whether parts of the item sold are subject to different tax treatments, and must treat those parts as different properties for purposes of § 1016. Thus, a taxpayer who bought an apartment building and the land it sits on for a single price must determine how much of that price went to pay for each, and must treat each cost as a separate asset for purposes of § 1016. This is so because the depreciation deduction allowable for the building (if the building is used to produce income) must, upon the sale or exchange of the property, be subtracted from the taxpayer’s basis in the building whether the deduction was taken or not; but there is no subtraction from the land’s basis since no such deduction is allowable for the land. See, e. g., Treas. Reg. § 1.167(a)-5 (requiring an apportionment of basis when a taxpayer has acquired “a combination of depreciable and nondepreciable property for a lump sum, as for example, buildings and land”). Although the Code and regulations allow some flexibility within such major categories of tax treatment, the boundaries between the major categories are almost completely impassable. When a taxpayer is dealing with associated items falling into two different major categories, he cannot, as a general matter, choose to treat those items as a single property falling into one category or the other; a taxpayer may not, for example, decide to treat some or all of his apartment building as more land. Nor may a taxpayer choose to add “improvement” costs to the basis of whichever item he pleases: some costs, say of a new roof, must be treated as adding to the value of the depreciable building (or as separate depreciable assets), whereas other costs, like that of grading a building site, must be treated as additions to the value of the nondepreciable land. See, e. g., Rev. Rul. 74-265, 1974-1 Cum. Bull. 56 (distinguishing between deprecia-ble and nondepreciable improvements to land). Depletion and depreciation are two of these major categories of tax treatment. As this Court said almost a half-century ago, “[t]h[e] distinction between depletion and depreciation runs through the basis provisions of the [Internal Revenue Code].” Choate v. Commissioner, 324 U. S. 1, 3 (1945). Thus, the Code’s depreciation allowance “does not apply to natural resources which are subject to the allowance for depletion provided in section 611.” Treas. Reg. §1.167(a)-2. Accordingly, §611 itself carefully appends, to its provision for “a reasonable allowance for depletion” in the case of natural deposits and timber, the qualification “and for depreciation of improvements, according to the peculiar conditions in each case.” 26 U. S. C. § 611(a) (1976 ed.); see Treas.. Reg. §1.611-5(a). To implement this distinction, the regulations under §611, mentioned above, separately define “mineral deposit” as “minerals in place,” Treas. Reg. § 1.611— 1(d)(4), and “mineral enterprise” as including “the mineral deposit or deposits and improvements,” § 1.611-1 (d)(3). The section defining “mineral deposit” then further provides that “[w]hen a mineral enterprise is acquired as a unit, the cost of any interest in the mineral deposit or deposits is that proportion of the total cost of the mineral enterprise which the value of the interest in the deposit or deposits bears to the value of the entire enterprise at the time of its acquisition.” Treas. Reg. § 1.611 — 1(d)(4); see also § 1.611 — 2(g)(2)(vii) (requiring a statement to be attached to the taxpayer’s return showing “[a]n allocation of the cost or value among the mineral property, improvements and the surface of the land for purposes other than mineral production”). These provisions are designed to isolate those portions of the cost of a “mineral enterprise” that are subject to recovery through depletion. Thus, just as one generally cannot calculate an adjusted basis under §1016 by treating an apartment building as “more land,” one generally cannot treat tangible tools and equipment as “more mineral deposit.” If a mineral deposit and associated equipment are sold together, § 1016 requires the seller to separate them for the purpose of determining his gain or loss on the sale, just as §§ 167 and 611 required him to keep them separate for the purpose of calculating his depreciation and depletion deductions. Since, as the Hills point out, a regulation incorporates the §1016 rule into § 57(a)(8), and since the Hills have identified no exception to this rule, we infer that the Hills’ tangible costs may not be included in the basis of depletable mineral deposits for purposes of calculating the amount of percentage depletion subject to the minimum tax. IV Our conclusion is confirmed by the astonishing, circuitously achieved results of reading § 57(a)(8) as the taxpayers urge. A regulation that the Hills do not challenge provides that “[i]n no event shall percentage depletion in excess of cost or other basis of the property be credited to the improvements account or the depreciation reserve account.” Treas. Reg. § 1.611-2(b)(2). The tangible costs at issue here are recorded in these accounts. Thus, under this regulation, a tangible cost is not itself adjusted for the amount of percentage depletion that on the Hills’ theory it would shelter from the minimum tax each year. As a result, the tangible cost would shelter, • over the years the taxpayer owned the capital item it represented, an amount of percentage depletion many times that of the cost itself. For example, a $21,000 capital item, subject to straight-line depreciation over 20 years with a salvage value of $1,000, would add $20,000 to the basis of the mineral deposit the first year, $19,000 the second year, and so on for 20 years. At the end • of the 20th year, the item would be fully depreciated, and the taxpayer’s basis in the item would then remain at $1,000, the salvage value, for as many more years as he continued to own it. Thus, over the first 20 years, the capital item would shelter $210,000, or 10 times its cost, from the minimum tax; beginning in the 21st year, it would shelter $1,000 per year for as long as it remained in the taxpayer’s hands. At a minimum tax rate of 15%, a taxpayer would realize a tax benefit, from his $21,000 investment, of $31,500 over the first 20 years from § 57(a)(8) alone, without regard to the additional tax benefit from ordinary depreciation of the item. It is hard to believe that Congress would enact a minimum tax to limit the benefit that taxpayers could realize from “items of tax preference,” only to define one of those items in a way that would create an even greater proportional tax benefit from investing in tangible items, and to do so in an oblique fashion that, as far as we know, has no precedent in the history of the federal income tax. V The Hills contend that two Treasury Department regulations we have not yet discussed foreclose our conclusion. They point first to one of the cost depletion regulations under §612, which, but for its title and one adjective, would independently reinforce our conclusion: “The basis for cost depletion of mineral or timber property does not include: “(i) Amounts recoverable through depreciation deductions, through deferred expenses, and through deductions other than depletion, and “(ii) The residual value of land and improvements at the end of operations.” Treas. Reg. § 1.612 — 1 (b)(1). This, of course, is exactly the conclusion in the case of percentage depletion that we have reached after a long detour through § 1016. Section 1.612 — 1(b)(1) applies by its terms, however, only to the determination of mineral deposit basis for the purpose of calculating cost depletion; and the title of § 1.612 — 1(b) is “Special rules.” Therefore, reason the Hills, the “general rule” for determining mineral deposit basis under § 1016 must include the items, such as “[ajmounts recoverable through depreciation deductions,” excluded in the “special rule.” But this argument proves too much. If the Hills stuck to their logic, they would have to claim that they could also add “[t]he residual value of land and improvements at the end of operations” to their bases in their mineral deposit interests, an absurdity that they cannot, and do not try to, support. The simple answer is that when an arguable suggestion of the title of one subsection of a regulation is pitted against the entire Code framework for determining basis, the Code wins, and the title is at most an infelicity. The infelicity is understandable here. The calculation of percentage depletion is unconnected to the concept of basis; the annual percentage depletion deduction is not measured in relation to basis, nor are the cumulative deductions limited by basis. See 26 U. S. C. §613 (1976 ed. and Supp. V). The concepts of basis and percentage depletion meet only in the minimum tax provisions, for the purpose of calculating the item of tax preference in § 57(a)(8). Since § l'.612-l(b)(l) was issued long before the minimum tax was enacted, see 25 Fed. Reg. 11801 (1960); Pub. L. 91-172, §301, 83 Stat. 580, that regulation’s reference to a “special rule” for “cost” depletion cannot have been intended to indicate that some other rule applied to the calculation of basis for percentage depletion. After the minimum tax was enacted, the Treasury Department inserted a regulation about basis for percentage depletion where one would expect it: among the regulations implementing the minimum tax. That regulation, § 1.57-l(h)(3), directs us to § 1016, but unfortunately contains no correlative reference to the regulations under § 612. Second, the Hills argue that excluding tangible costs from the adjusted basis of their mineral deposit interests would run counter to regulations specifying the inclusion of certain intangible costs. As we have already noted, 26 U. S. C. § 263(c) (1976 ed., Supp. V) grants taxpayers an option to deduct as expenses certain “intangible drilling and development costs.” If a taxpayer chooses instead to capitalize those costs, the regulations require the taxpayer to sort the costs into two bins. Costs “represented by physical property” are recoverable through depreciation, either through adjustments to the bases of pre-existing items to which the costs relate, or through an initial entry in a new.depreciation account. Treas. Reg. § 1.612-4(b)(2). Costs “not represented by physical property” are recoverable through depletion, as adjustments to the bases of the mineral deposit interests to which they relate. § 1.612 — 4(b)(1); see § 1.612-4(d) (if a taxpayer fails to elect to expense intangible costs correctly, “he shall be deemed to have elected to recover such costs through depletion to the extent that they are not represented by physical property, and through depreciation to the extent that they are represented by physical property”). Since these latter costs are added to depletable basis, the taxpayers argue, so should the tangible costs that are excluded altogether from the § 263(c) option. We fail to see the logic of this argument. To the extent that the. regulation allowing intangible costs “not represented by physical property” to be added to a mineral deposit’s basis deviates from general principles of basis allocation, we see no reason why one deviation should force the Government, or this Court, to create another. Nor have the Hills explained why this regulation in fact represents a deviation. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed. A11 references to the Internal Revenue Code and related Treasury Regulations are to those that applied during the tax years at issue. The Treasury Regulations are cited as codified in the 1981 and 1982 editions of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In the course of enacting the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Congress redesignated § 57(a)(8) as § 57(a)(1) for taxable years beginning after 1986. See Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, §§ 701(a) and 701(f)(1), 100 Stat. 2333,2343. In October 1992, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776. Section 1915(a) of that Act amends § 57(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code and provides that, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1992, the depletion allowance permitted under §613A(c) of the Code will not be treated as an item of tax preference subject to taxation as alternative minimum taxable income. See n. 3, infra. Allowable capital additions include intangible drilling and development costs that are “not represented by physical property,” such as expenditures for clearing ground, draining, road making, surveying, geological work, grading, and the drilling, shooting, and cleaning of wells, to the extent that the taxpayer opts to capitalize these costs rather than deducting them as expenses. Treas. Reg. § 1.612 — 4(b)(1). For further discussion of these costs, see infra, at 563-564. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-248, § 201, 96 Stat. 411, repealed the “minimum tax” for noncorporate taxpayers for tax years beginning after December 31, 1982. See §§ 201(c)(1), 201(e)(1). At the same time, however, the Act also included items of tax preference, such as excess percentage depletion under § 67(a)(8), in the calculation of a taxpayer’s “alternative minimum taxable income.” § 201(a). While the “minimum tax” was simply added to the amount of income tax due under the normal provisions, the “alternative minimum tax” provision, 26 U. S. C. § 55 (1982 ed.), requires the recalculation of a taxpayer’s income under a different set of rules. A tax is then imposed at a graduated rate on the taxpayer’s “alternative minimum taxable income”; if the amount of alternative minimum tax so calculated is greater than the income tax calculated under the ordinary provisions, the taxpayer must pay both the normal tax and the amount by which his alternative minimum tax liability exceeds his ordinary tax liability. Because items of tax preference were added to “alternative minimum taxable income,” the issue in this case continued to be relevant for tax years beginning after December 31, 1982. For the subsequent history of § 57(a)(8), see n. 1, swpra. Section 67(a)(8) applies to “each property (as defined in section 614).” Section 614(a) defines “property,” “[f]or the purpose of computing the depletion allowance in the case of mines, wells, and other natural deposits,” as “each separate interest owned by the taxpayer in each mineral deposit in each separate tract or parcel of land.” (The remainder of § 614 provides detailed rules about when a taxpayer may, and sometimes must, combine separate interests and treat them as one “property.”) Section 1.614-l(a) of the Treasury Department regulations makes the definition in §614 applicable “[f]or purposes of subtitle A of the [Internal Revenue] Code.” The regulations also foreclose the option with respect to the cost of “labor, fuel, repairs, hauling, supplies, etc., in connection with the operation of the wells and of other facilities on the property for the production of oil or gas.” Treas. Reg. § 1.612-4(c)(2). These costs must be “charged off as expense.” Ibid. Section 263(a)(1) has one of the longest lineages of any provision in the Internal Revenue Code. The Revenue Act of 1864 included a provision specifying that “no deduction shall be made for any amount paid out for new buildings, permanent improvements, or betterments, made to increase the value of any property or estate.” § 117, 13 Stat. 282. The wording of this provision remained the same in § 28 of the Revenue Act of 1894, 28 Stat. 553, and in § 2(B) of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 167. The current wording of the provision was adopted in the Revenue Act of 1918. See § 215(b) of the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1069. The language of Treas. Reg. § 1.1016-2(a) apparently originated in a passage in a House Committee Report on the Revenue Act of 1924, discussing the progenitor of 26 U. S. C. § 1016. See H. R. Rep. No. 179, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 50 (1924) (“Under this provision capital charges, such as improvements and betterments... are to be added to the cost of the property in determining the gain or loss from its subsequent sale”). The forerunner to Treas. Reg. § 1.1016-2(a) was issued that same year. See Treas. Regs. 65, Art. 581 (1924). After tracing the word “improvement” from the regulations implementing § 611 through the regulations implementing § 1016 to the text of §263, one might hope that §263 itself would provide some insight into whether tangible development costs should be treated as an “improvement” to the mineral deposit, or as a separate property. Two circumstances dash this hope. First, as we said above, the phrase “improvements and betterments,” as used in the § 1016 regulations and in § 263, should probably be read as a single term unrelated to the term “improvements” in §611 and the regulations thereunder. Second, §263 is concerned only with identifying those payments that “serv[e] to create or enhance... what is essentially a separate and distinct additional asset.” Commissioner v. Lincoln Savings & Loan Assn., 403 U. S. 345, 354 (1971). So long as one can say that a payment must either be “creating” a separate asset or “enhancing” one that already exists, one need not, for purposes of § 263, identify which of these is the case. Here, we are presented with precisely that question. The directive is phrased “not less than the amount allowable” to account for the case in which a taxpayer has erroneously deducted more than that amount in a prior year. In that case, the taxpayer must reduce the basis by the greater amount actually deducted, to the extent that it resulted “(by reason of the deductions so allowed) in a reduction for any taxable year of [his] taxes.” 26 U. S. C. § 1016(a)(2)(B) (1976 ed.); see § 1016(a)(2)(A). For example, a taxpayer may set up a depreciation account for a new furnace separate from that of the account of the building in which it is installed; he may also, under some circumstances, set up a “composite” account which combines the cost of the building with the cost of “improvements,” such as the furnace. See generally Treas. Reg. § 1.167(a)-7 (describing “group,” “classified,” “composite,” and component accounts for depreciable property). As we have noted, see n. 7, supra, the word “improvements” carries a different meaning here than it does within the term “improvements or betterments” as used in § 263(a). Under § 57(a)(8), percentage depletion is offset by “the adjusted basis of the [mineral deposit interest] at the end of the taxable year." (Emphasis added.) Assuming that the capital item was placed in service at the beginning of a taxable year, by the end of the year the taxpayer’s basis in it would be reduced by the first year’s depreciation. Thus, in our example, the $21,000 capital item would add $20,000 to the taxpayer’s basis in the mineral deposit, for purposes of § 57(a)(8), the first year it was placed in service. The taxpayers also cite Internal Revenue Service Technical Advice Memorandum 8314011 (Dec. 22, 1982), which holds that unamortized deferred development expenditures under § 616 of the Code are included in the basis of a mineral deposit for purposes of § 57(a)(8). As respondents acknowledge, the Code specifically provides that such memoranda “may not be used or 'cited as precedent.” 26 U. S. C. §6110(j)(3) (1976 ed.). In any case Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

L

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari to determine whether the District Court properly dismissed a Title VII complaint alleging that a law partnership discriminated against petitioner, a woman lawyer employed as an associate, when it failed to invite her to become a partner. I A In 1972 petitioner Elizabeth Anderson Hishon accepted a position as an associate with respondent, a large Atlanta law firm established as a general partnership. When this suit was filed in 1980, the firm had more than 50 partners and employed approximately 50 attorneys as associates. Up to that time, no woman had ever served as a partner at the firm. Petitioner alleges that the prospect of partnership was an important factor in her initial decision to accept employment with respondent. She alleges that respondent used the possibility of ultimate partnership as a recruiting device to induce petitioner and other young lawyers to become associates at the firm. According to the complaint, respondent represented that advancement to partnership after five or six years was “a matter of course” for associates “who receive[d] satisfactory evaluations” and that associates were promoted to partnership “on a fair and equal basis.” Petitioner alleges that she relied on these representations when she accepted employment with respondent. The complaint further alleges that respondent’s promise to consider her on a “fair and equal basis” created a binding employment contract. In May 1978 the partnership considered and rejected Hishon for admission to the partnership; one year later, the partners again declined to invite her to become a partner. Once an associate is passed over for partnership at respondent’s firm, the associate is notified to begin seeking employment elsewhere. Petitioner’s employment as an associate terminated on December 31, 1979. B Hishon filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 19, 1979, claiming that respondent had discriminated against her on the basis of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 241, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq. Ten days later the Commission issued a notice of right to sue, and on February 27, 1980, Hishon brought this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief, backpay, and compensatory damages “in lieu of reinstatement and promotion to partnership.” This, of course, negates any claim for specific performance of the contract alleged. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Title VII was inapplicable to the selection of partners by a partnership. 24 FEP Cases 1303 (1980). A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 678 F. 2d 1022 (1982). We granted certio-rari, 459 U. S. 1169 (1983), and we reverse. At this stage of the litigation, we must accept petitioners allegations as true. A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The issue before us is whether petitioner’s allegations state a claim under Title VII, the relevant portion of which provides as follows: “(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— “(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a) (emphasis added). A Petitioner alleges that respondent is an “employer” to whom Title VII is addressed. She then asserts that consideration for partnership was one of the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” as an associate with respondent. See §2000e-2(a)(l). If this is correct, respondent could not base an adverse partnership decision on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Once a contractual relationship of employment is established, the provisions of Title VII attach and govern certain aspects of that relationship. In the context of Title VII, the contract of employment may be written or oral, formal or informal; an informal contract of employment may arise by the simple act of handing a job applicant a shovel and providing a workplace. The contractual relationship of employment triggers the provision of Title VII governing “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Title VII in turn forbids discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Because the underlying employment relationship is contractual, it follows that the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” clearly include benefits that are part of an employment contract. Here, petitioner in essence alleges that respondent made a contract to consider her for partnership. Indeed, this promise was allegedly a key contractual provision which induced her to accept employment. If the evidence at trial establishes that the parties contracted to have petitioner considered for partnership, that promise clearly was a term,- condition, or privilege of her employment. Title VII would then bind respondent to consider petitioner for partnership as the statute provides, i. e., without regard to petitioner’s sex. The contract she alleges would lead to the same result. Petitioner’s claim that a contract was made, however, is not the only allegation that would qualify respondent’s consideration of petitioner for partnership as a term, condition, or privilege of employment. An employer may provide its employees with many benefits that it is under no obligation to furnish by any express or implied contract. Such a benefit, though not a contractual right of employment, may qualify as a “privileg[e]” of employment under Title VII. A benefit that is part and parcel of the employment relationship may not be doled out in a discriminatory fashion, even if the employer would be free under the employment contract simply not to provide the benefit at all. Those benefits that comprise the “incidents of employment,” S. Rep. No. 867, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 11 (1964), or that form “an aspect of the relationship between the employer and employees,” Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U. S. 157, 178 (1971), may not be afforded in a manner contrary to Title VII. Several allegations in petitioner’s complaint would support the conclusion that the opportunity to become a partner was part and parcel of an associate’s status as an employee at respondent’s firm, independent of any allegation that such an opportunity was included in associates’ employment contracts. Petitioner alleges that respondent’s associates could regularly expect to be considered for partnership at the end of their “apprenticeships,” and it appears that lawyers outside the firm were not routinely so considered. Thus, the benefit of partnership consideration was allegedly linked directly with an associate’s status as an employee, and this linkage was far more than coincidental: petitioner alleges that respondent explicitly used the prospect of ultimate partnership to induce young lawyers to join the firm. Indeed, the importance of the partnership decision to a lawyer’s status as an associate is underscored by the allegation that associates’ employment is terminated if they are not elected to become partners. These allegations, if proved at trial, would suffice to show that partnership consideration was a term, condition, or privilege of an associate’s employment at respondent’s firm, and accordingly that partnership consideration must be without regard to sex. B Respondent contends that advancement to partnership may never qualify as a term, condition, or privilege of employment for purposes of Title VII. First, respondent asserts that elevation to partnership entails a change in status from an “employee” to an “employer.” However, even if respondent is correct that a partnership invitation is not itself an offer of employment, Title VII would nonetheless apply and preclude discrimination on the basis of sex. The benefit a plaintiff is denied need not be employment to fall within Title VII’s protection; it need only be a term, condition, or privilege of employment. It is also of no consequence that employment as an associate necessarily ends when an associate becomes a partner. A benefit need not accrue before a person’s employment is completed to be a term, condition, or privilege of that employment relationship. Pension benefits, for example, qualify as terms, conditions, or privileges of employment even though they are received only after employment terminates. Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris, 463 U. S. 1073, 1079 (1983) (opinion of MARSHALL, J.). Accordingly, nothing in the change in status that advancement to partnership might entail means that partnership consideration falls outside the terms of the statute. See Lucido v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, 425 F. Supp. 123, 128-129 (SDNY 1977). Second, respondent argues that Title VII categorically exempts partnership decisions from scrutiny. However, respondent points to nothing in the statute or the legislative history that would support such a per se exemption. When Congress wanted to grant an employer complete immunity, it expressly did so. Third, respondent argues that application of Title VII in this case would infringe constitutional rights of expression or association. Although we have recognized that the activities of lawyers may make a “distinctive contribution.... to the ideas and beliefs of our society,” NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 431 (1963), respondent has not shown how its ability to fulfill such a function would be inhibited by a requirement that it consider petitioner for partnership on her merits. Moreover, as we have held in another context, “[invidious private discrimination may be characterized as a form of exercising freedom of association protected by the First Amendment, but it has never been accorded affirmative constitutional protections.” Norwood, v. Harrison, 413 U. S. 455, 470 (1973). There is no constitutional right, for example, to discriminate in the selection of who may attend a private school or join a labor union. Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160 (1976); Railway Mail Assn. v. Corsi, 326 U. S. 88, 93-94 (1945). Ill We conclude that petitioner’s complaint states a claim cognizable under Title VII. Petitioner therefore is entitled to her day in court to prove her allegations. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. The parties dispute whether the partnership actually reconsidered the 1978 decision at the 1979 meeting. Respondent claims it voted not to reconsider the question and that Hishon therefore was required to file her claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days of the May 1978 meeting, not the meeting one year later, see 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(e). The District Court’s disposition of the case made it unnecessary to decide that question, and we do not reach it. The District Court dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the ground that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim. Although limited discovery previously had taken place concerning the manner in which respondent was organized, the court did not find any “jurisdictional facts” in dispute. See Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U. S. 442, 446 (1942). Its reasoning makes clear that it dismissed petitioner’s complaint on the ground that her allegations did not state a claim cognizable under Title VII. Our disposition makes it unnecessary to consider the wisdom of the District Court’s invocation of Rule 12(b)(1), as opposed to Rule 12(b)(6). The statute defines an “employer” as a “person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year,” § 2000e(b), and a “person” is explicitly defined to include “partnerships,” §2000e(a). The complaint alleges that respondent’s partnership satisfies these requirements. App. 6. Petitioner has raised other theories of Title VII liability which, in light of our disposition, need not be addressed. Title VII also may be relevant in the absence of an existing employment relationship, as when an employer refuses to hire someone. See § 2000e-2(a)(l). However, discrimination in that circumstance does not concern the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” which is the focus of the present case. Petitioner alleges not only that respondent promised to consider her for partnership, but also that it promised to consider her on a “fair and equal basis.” This latter promise is not necessary to petitioner’s Title VII claim. Even if the employment contract did not afford a basis for an implied condition that the ultimate decision would be fairly made on the merits, Title VII itself would impose such a requirement. If the promised consideration for partnership is a term, condition, or privilege of employment, then the partnership decision must be without regard to “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Senate Report No. 867 concerned S. 1937, which the Senate postponed indefinitely after it amended a House version of what ultimately became the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See 110 Cong. Rec. 14602 (1964). The Report is relevant here because S. 1937 contained language similar to that ultimately found in the Civil Rights Act. It guaranteed “equal employment opportunity,” which was defined to “include all the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” S. Rep. No. 867, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 24 (1964). Chemical & Alkali Workers pertains to §8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which describes the obligation of employers and unions to meet and confer regarding “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.” 61 Stat. 142, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158(d). The meaning of this analogous language sheds light on the Title VII provision at issue here. We have drawn analogies to the NLRA in other Title VII contexts, see Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 768-770 (1976), and have noted that certain sections of Title VII were expressly patterned after the NLRA, see Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 419 (1975). Respondent’s own submissions indicate that most of respondent’s partners in fact were selected from the ranks of associates who had spent their entire prepartnership legal careers (excluding judicial clerkships) with the firm. See App. 45. The only legislative history respondent offers to support its position is Senator Cotton’s defense of an unsuccessful amendment to limit Title VII to businesses with 100 or more employees. In this connection the Senator stated: “[W]hen a small businessman who employs 30 or 25 or 26 persons selects an employee, he comes very close to selecting a partner; and when a businessman selects a partner, he comes dangerously close to the situation he faces when he selects a wife.” 110 Cong. Rec. 13085 (1964); accord, 118 Cong. Rec. 1524, 2391 (1972). Because Senator Cotton’s amendment failed, it is unclear to what extent Congress shared his concerns about selecting partners. In any event, his views hardly conflict with our narrow holding today: that in appropriate circumstances partnership consideration may qualify as a term, condition, or privilege of a person’s employment with an employer large enough to be covered by Title VII. For example, Congress expressly exempted Indian tribes and certain agencies of the District of Columbia, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(b)(l), small businesses and bona fide private membership clubs, § 2000e(b)(2), and certain employees of religious organizations, §2000e-l. Congress initially exempted certain employees of educational institutions, § 702, 78 Stat. 255, but later revoked that exemption, Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, §3, 86 Stat. 103. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. In Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U. S. 288 (1981), we held that a trial judge must, if requested to do so, instruct the jury not to draw an adverse inference from the defendant’s failure to take the stand. In this case, the Kentucky Supreme Court found that the trial judge was relieved of that obligation because defense counsel requested an “admonition” rather than an “instruction.” I Petitioner Michael James was indicted for receipt of stolen property, burglary, and rape. James had been convicted of two prior felonies — forgery and murder — and the prosecution warned that were James to take the stand it would use the forgery conviction to impeach his testimony. During voir dire, defense counsel asked the prospective jurors how they would feel were James not to testify. After a brief exchange between counsel and one member of the venire, the trial judge interrupted, stating: “They have just said they would try the case solely upon the law and the evidence. That excludes any other consideration.” App. 30. With that, voir dire came to a close. James did not testify at trial. At the close of testimony, counsel and the judge had an off-the-record discussion about instructions. When they returned on the record, James’ lawyer noted that he objected to several of the instructions being given, and that he “requests that an admonition be given to the jury that no emphasis be given to the defendant’s failure to testify which was overruled.” Id., at 95. The judge then instructed the jury, which returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. At a subsequent persistent felony offender proceeding, the jury sentenced James to life imprisonment in light of his two previous convictions. On appeal, James argued that the trial judge’s refusal to tell the jury not to draw an adverse inference from his failure to testify violated Carter v. Kentucky, supra. The Kentucky Supreme Court conceded that Carter requires the trial judge, upon request, to instruct the jury not to draw an adverse inference. 647 S. W. 2d 794, 795 (1988). The court noted, however, that James had requested an admonition rather than an instruction, and there is a “vast difference” between the two under state law. He “was entitled to the instruction, but did not ask for it. The trial court properly denied the request for an admonition.” Id., at 795-796. We granted certiorari, 464 U. S. 913 (1983), to determine whether petitioner’s asserted procedural default adequately supports the result below. We now reverse. II In Carter we held that, in order fully to effectuate the right to remain silent, a trial judge must instruct the jury not to draw an adverse inference from the defendant’s failure to testify if requested to do so. James argues that the essence of the holding in Carter is that the judge must afford some form of guidance to the jury, and that the admonition he sought was the “functional equivalent” of the instruction required by Carter. The State responds that the trial judge was under no obligation to provide an admonition when under Kentucky practice James should have sought an instruction. An examination of the state-law background is necessary to understand these arguments. A Kentucky distinguishes between “instructions” and “admonitions.” The former tend to be statements of black-letter law, the latter cautionary statements regarding the jury’s conduct. See generally Webster v. Commonwealth, 508 S. W. 2d 33, 36 (Ky. App.), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1070 (1974); Miller v. Noell, 193 Ky. 659, 237 S. W. 373 (App. 1922). Thus, “admonitions” include statements to the jury requiring it to disregard certain testimony, Perry v. Commonwealth, 652 S. W. 2d 655, 662 (Ky. 1983); Stallings v. Commonwealth, 556 S. W. 2d 4, 5 (Ky. 1977), to consider particular evidence for purposes of evaluating credibility only, Harris v. Commonwealth, 556 S. W. 2d 669, 670 (Ky. 1977); Lynch v. Commonwealth, 472 S. W. 2d 263, 266 (Ky. App. 1971), and to consider evidence as to one codefen-dant only, Ware v. Commonwealth, 537 S. W. 2d 174, 177 (Ky. 1976). The State Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that at each adjournment the jury is to be “admonished” not to discuss the case. Ky. Rule Crim. Proc. 9.70 (“Admonition”). See generally 1 J. Palmore & R. Lawson, Instructions to Juries in Kentucky 16-20, 397-404 (1975) (hereinafter Palmore). Instructions, on the other hand, set forth the legal rales governing the outcome of a case. They “state what the jury must believe from the evidence ... in order to return a verdict in favor of the party who bears the burden of proof.” Webster v. Commonwealth, supra, at 36. The judge reads the instructions to the jury at the end of the trial, and provides it a written copy. Ky. Rule Crim. Proc. 9.54(1). After Carter, Kentucky amended its Criminal Rules to provide that, if the defendant so requests, the instructions must state that he is not compelled to testify and that the jury shall not draw an adverse inference from his election not to. Rule 9.54(3). The substantive distinction between admonitions and instructions is not always clear or closely hewn to. Kentucky’s highest court has recognized that the content of admonitions and instructions can overlap. In a number of cases, for example, it has referred to a trial court’s failure either to instruct or to admonish the jury on a particular point, indicating that either was a possibility. E. g., Caldwell v. Commonwealth, 503 S. W. 2d 485, 493-494 (1972) (“instructions” did not contain a particular “admonition,” but the “failure to admonish or instruct” was harmless); Reeves v. Commonwealth, 462 S. W. 2d 926, 930, cert. denied, 404 U. S. 836 (1971). See also Bennett v. Horton, 592 S. W. 2d 460, 464 (1979) (“instructions” included the “admonition” that the jury could make a certain setoff against the award); Carson v. Commonwealth, 382 S. W. 2d 85, 95 (1964) (“The fourth instruction was the usual reasonable doubt admonition”). The court has acknowledged that “sometimes mát-ters more appropriately the subject of admonition are included with or as a part of the instructions.” Webster v. Commonwealth, supra, at 36. In pre-Carter cases holding that a defendant had no right to have the jury told not to draw an adverse inference, Kentucky’s highest court did not distinguish admonitions from instructions. See, e. g., Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 554 S. W. 2d 75, 79-80 (1977) (“instruction”); Scott v. Commonwealth, 495 S. W. 2d 800, 802 (“written admonition,” “admonition”), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 1073 (1973); Green v. Commonwealth, 488 S. W. 2d 339, 341 (1972) (“instruction”); Dixon v. Commonwealth, 478 S. W. 2d 719 (1972) (“an instruction admonishing the jury”); Jones v. Commonwealth, 457 S. W. 2d 627, 630 (1970) (“admonition” during another witness’ testimony), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 946 (1971); Roberson v. Commonwealth, 274 Ky. 49, 50, 118 S. W. 2d 157, 157-158 (1938) (“admonition”), citing Hanks v. Commonwealth, 248 Ky. 203, 205, 58 S. W. 2d 394, 395 (App. 1933) (“instruction”). A statement to the jury not to draw an adverse inference from the defendant’s failure to testify would seem to fall more neatly into the admonition category than the instruction category. Cautioning the jury against considering testimony not given differs little from cautioning it not to consider testimony that was. However, the Kentucky Criminal Rules treat it as an instruction. See n. 4, supra. One procedural difference between admonitions and instructions is that the former are normally oral, while the latter, though given orally, are also provided to the jury in writing. See generally 1 Palmore, ch. 12. However, this distinction is not strictly adhered to. As the cases cited above indicate, “admonitions” frequently appear in the written instructions. See also id., at 21 (“An ‘admonition’. . . need not be in writing. However, it is not error to give such admonition in writing as an instruction”); id., at 17. Conversely, instructions may be given only orally if the defendant waives the writing requirement. Brief for Respondent 25; Tr. of Oral Arg. 31, 38-39. The State contends, though without citing any authority, that the instructions must be all in writing or all oral, and that it would have been reversible error for the trial judge to have given this “instruction” orally. Yet the Kentucky Court of Appeals has held, for example, that there was no error where the trial court, after reading the written instructions, told the jury orally that its verdict must be unanimous, a statement normally considered an “instruction.” Freeman v. Commonwealth, 425 S. W. 2d 575, 579 (1968). And in several cases the Court of Appeals has found no error where the trial court gave oral explanations of its written instructions. E. g., Allee v. Commonwealth, 454 S. W. 2d 336, 342 (1970), cert. dism’d sub nom. Green v. Kentucky, 401 U. S. 950 (1971); Ingram v. Commonwealth, 427 S. W. 2d 815, 817 (1968). Finally, given Kentucky's strict contemporaneous-objection rule, see, e. g., Webster v. Commonwealth, 508 S. W. 2d, at 36; Reeves v. Commonwealth, supra, at 930; Ky. Rule Crim. Proc. 9.54(2), it would be odd if it were reversible error for the trial court to have given a Carter instruction orally at the defendant’s request. See also Weichhand v. Garlinger, 447 S. W. 2d 606, 610 (Ky. App. 1969) (harmless error to give oral admonition where written instruction was requested and appropriate). B There can be no dispute that, for federal constitutional purposes, James adequately invoked his substantive right to jury guidance. See Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 415, 422 (1965). The question is whether counsel’s passing reference to an “admonition” is a fatal procedural default under Kentucky law adequate to support the result below and to prevent us from considering petitioner’s constitutional claim. In light of the state-law background described above, we hold that it is not. Kentucky’s distinction between admonitions and instructions is not the sort of firmly established and regularly followed state practice that can prevent implementation of federal constitutional rights. Cf. Barr v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 146, 149 (1964). Carter holds that if asked to do so the trial court must tell the jury not to draw the impermissible inference. To insist on a particular label for this statement would “force resort to an arid ritual of meaningless form,” Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 320 (1958), and would further no perceivable state interest, Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U. S. 443, 448-449 (1965). See also NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Flowers, 377 U. S. 288, 293-302 (1964). “Admonition” is a term that both we and the State Supreme Court have used in this context and which is reasonable under state law and normal usage. As Justice Holmes wrote 60 years ago: “Whatever springes the State may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the State confers, the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 24 (1923). C The State argues that this is more than a case of failure to use the required magic word, however. It considers James’ request for an admonition to have been a deliberate strategy. He sought an oral statement only in order to put “less emphasis on this particular subject, not before the jury, not in writing to be read over and over, but to have been commented upon and passed by.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 39-40. James, now represented by his third attorney, seems to concede that the first attorney did seek an oral admonition. He does not argue that the trial court had to include the requested statement in the instructions, though he suggests that it could have done so, and that he would have been happy with either a written or an oral statement. Brief for Petitioner 23-25. We would readily agree that the State is free to require that all instructions be in writing; and to categorize a no-adverse-inference statement as an instruction. The Constitution obliges the trial judge to tell the jury, in an effective manner, not to draw the inference if the defendant so requests; but it does not afford the defendant the right to dictate, inconsistent with state practice, how the jury is to be told. Cf. Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U. S. 478, 485-486 (1978). In Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U. S. 333 (1978), we held that the judge may give a no-adverse-inference instruction over the defendant's objection. Given that, the State may surely give a written instruction over the defendant’s request that it be oral only. And if that is so, the State can require that if the instruction is to be given, it be done in writing. For reasons similar to those set out in Lakeside, we do not think that a State would impermissibly infringe the defendant’s right not to testify by requiring that if the jury is to be alerted to it, it be alerted in writing. See generally Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 146 (1973). This is not a case, however, of a defendant attempting to circumvent such a firm state procedural rule. For one thing, as the discussion in Part II-A, supra, indicates, the oral/written distinction is not as solid as the State would have us believe. Admonitions can be written and instructions oral, and the Kentucky Supreme Court has itself used the term “admonition” in referring to instructions that “admonish.” In addition, our own examination of the admittedly incomplete record reveals little to support the State’s view of petitioner’s request. The single passing reference to an “admonition” is far too slender a reed on which to rest the conclusion that petitioner insisted on an oral statement and nothing but. Apart from this one use of the term, there is absolutely nothing in the record to indicate any such insistence. Indeed, other indications are to the contrary. Before going off the record, defense counsel stated that he had “a matter in regards to the instructions.” Tr. of Hearing (Jan. 19,1982), p. 3 (emphasis added). Returning to the record, he noted that he “object[ed] to several of the instructions being given to the jury” and that his request for “an admonition” to the jury regarding the defendant’s failure to testify had been overruled. The court below inferred from these two statements that counsel had sought an oral statement apart from the instructions. Yet the statements could also be a shift from an objection to what was being said to the jury (“the instructions being given”), to an objection to what was not (“requests an admonition . . . which was overruled”). It is also possible that counsel sought both a written and an oral statement and was denied on both counts. Where it is inescapable that the defendant sought to invoke the substance of his federal right, the asserted state-law defect in form must be more evident than it is here. In the circumstances of this case, we cannot find that petitioner’s constitutional rights were respected or that the result below rests on independent and adequate state grounds. III Respondent argues that even if there was error, it was harmless. It made the same argument below, but the Kentucky Supreme Court did not reach it in light of its conclusion that no error had been committed. We have not determined whether Carter error can be harmless, see Carter, 450 U. S., at 304, and we do not do so now. Even if an evaluation of harmlessness is called for, it is best made in state court before it is made here. The case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. Justice Marshall took no part in the decision of this case. Justice Rehnquist dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U. S. 288, 307-310 (1981). The charges grew out of three separate incidents, all involving Donna Richardson. Richardson testified that on April 23, 1980, her house was broken into and a gun taken from under her pillows. A week later, she came home to find that a pane of glass had been removed from her back door, the locks undone, and her pillows messed up. On May 6, James, her next-door neighbor, asked to use her telephone to call a doctor. When Kichardson let him in and began dialing, he put a gun to her side, tied her up, brought her to his house, and raped her. James had the stolen pistol in his possession when arrested, hence the charge of receiving stolen property. His fingerprint was found on the missing pane of glass, hence the charge of burglary. We rejected similar logic with regard to the instructions themselves in Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U. S. 288 (1981): “Kentucky also argues that in the circumstances of this case the jurors knew they could not make adverse inferences from the petitioner’s election to remain silent because they were instructed to determine guilt ‘from the evidence alone,’ and because failure to testify is not evidence. The Commonwealth’s argument is unpersuasive. Jurors are not lawyers; they do not know the technical meaning of ‘evidence.’ They can be expected to notice a defendant’s failure to testify, and, without limiting instruction, to speculate about incriminating inferences from a defendant’s silence.” Id., at 303-304. The relevant portion of the transcript reads, in its entirety, as follows: “JUDGE MEIGS: Call your witness. You have closed, I am sorry. “MR. PEALE [defense counsel]: We have closed and has [sic] a matter in regards to the instructions. “OFF THE RECORD. “MR. PEALE: Note that the defendant objects to several of the instructions being given to the jury. “JUDGE MEIGS: Overruled. “MR. PEALE: The defendant requests that an admonition be given to the jury that no emphasis be given to the defendant’s failure to testify which was overruled. “JUDGE MEIGS: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, these are your instructions. . . .” Tr. of Hearing (Jan. 19, 1982), pp. 3-4. That Rule provides: “The instructions shall not make any reference to a defendant’s failure to testify unless so requested by him, in which event the court shall give an instruction to the effect that he is not compelled to testify and that the jury shall not draw any inference of guilt from his election not to testify and shall not allow it to prejudice him in any way.” Indeed, such a statement is substantively indistinguishable from an “admonition” given in this very case. When James was brought into court for the persistent-felony-offender hearing, he was in handcuffs. After requesting and being denied a mistrial, his attorney asked: “Can we at least have an admonition to the jury, your Honor?” The judge obliged, telling the jury it was “admonished not to consider the fact that the defendant was brought into the courtroom shackled and handcuffed. That should have nothing to do, no bearing at all, on your decision in this case.” 5 Tr. 4. See Bruno v. United States, 308 U. S. 287, 294 (1939) (Court unwilling to assume “that jurors, if properly admonished, neither could nor would heed the instructions of the trial court” not to draw an improper inference). When asked at oral argument whether his “basic argument [is] that your client was entitled to an instruction because he had requested something almost like an instruction or that he was entitled to an admonition because he had requested an admonition,” petitioner’s counsel answered that his “basic argument is that he was entitled to an admonition, at the very least.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 25. Whether Kentucky has in fact done so is not clear. See supra, at 348. Neither of the trial lawyers was involved in the appeal. Thus, appellate counsel and the appellate court were working from the same un-elaborated record that is before us. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case we must decide whether the deposit of a “bad check” in a federally insured bank is proscribed by 18 U. S. C. §1014. I In 1975, petitioner William Archie Williams purchased a controlling interest in the Pelican State Bank in Pelican, La., and appointed himself president. The bank’s deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Among the services the bank provided its customers at the time of petitioner’s purchase was access to a “dummy account,” used to cover checks drawn by depositors who had insufficient funds in their individual accounts. Any such check was processed through the dummy account and paid from the bank’s general assets. The check was then held until the customer covered it by a deposit to his own account, at which time the held check was posted to the customer’s account and the dummy account was credited accordingly. As president of the bank, petitioner enjoyed virtually unlimited use of the dummy account, and by May 2, 1978, his personal overdrafts amounted to $58,055.44, approximately half the total then covered by the account. On May 8, 1978, federal and state examiners arrived at the Pelican Bank to conduct an audit. That same day, petitioner embarked on a series of transactions that seemingly amounted to a case of “check kiting.” He began by opening a checking account with a deposit of $4,649.97 at the federally insured Winn State Bank and Trust Company in Winnfield, La. The next day, petitioner drew a check on his new Winn account for $58,500 — a sum far in excess of the amount actually on deposit at the Winn Bank — and deposited it in his Pelican account. Pelican credited his account with the face value of the check, at the same time deducting from petitioner’s account the $58,055.44 total of his checks that previously had been cleared through the dummy account. At the close of business on May 9, then, petitioner had a balance of $452.89 at the Pelican Bank. On May 10, petitioner wrote a'$60,000 check on his Pelican account — again, a sum far in excess of the account balance— and deposited it in his Winn account. The Winn Bank immediately credited the $60,000 to petitioner’s account there, and Pelican cleared the check through its dummy account when it was presented for payment on May 11. The Winn Bank routinely paid petitioner’s May 9 check for $58,500 when it cleared on May 12. Petitioner next attempted to balance his Pelican account by depositing a $65,000 check drawn on his account at yet another institution, the Sabine State Bank in Many, La. Unfortunately, the balance in petitioner’s Sabine account at the time was only $1,204.81. The Sabine Bank therefore refused payment when Pelican presented the check on May 17. On May 23, petitioner settled his Pelican account by depositing at the Pelican Bank a $65,000 money order obtained with the proceeds from a real estate mortgage loan. The bank examiners, meanwhile, had been following petitioner’s activities with considerable interest. Their scrutiny ultimately led to petitioner’s indictment, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, on two counts of violating 18 U. S. C. § 1014. That provision makes it a crime to “knowingly mak[e] any false statement or report, or willfully overvalue] any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of [certain enumerated financial institutions, among them banks whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation], upon any application, advance, discount, purchase, purchase agreement, repurchase agreement, commitment, or loan . . . .” The first of the counts under § 1014 was directed at the May 9,1978, check drawn on the Winn Bank, and charged that petitioner “did knowingly and willfully overvalue ... a security, that is a check ... for the purpose of influencing the Pelican State Bank, ... a bank the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, upon an advance of money and extension of credit.” The other § 1014 count used virtually identical language to indict petitioner for depositing in his Winn account the May 10 check drawn on the Pelican Bank. App. 3-4. At petitioner’s trial the court charged the jury that “[a] check is a security for purposes of Section 1014.” The court then explained that “[t]he Government charges that Mr. Williams was involved in check-kiting — a scheme whereby false credit is obtained by the exchange and passing of worthless checks between two or more banks.” Id., at 36. To convict petitioner, the court continued, the jury had to find as to each count that “the defendant ... did knowingly and willfully make a false statement of a material fact,” that the statement “influence^] the decision of the [bank] officers or employees,” and that “the defendant made the false statement with fraudulent intent to influence the [bank] to extend credit to the defendant.” Id., at 37-38. “The crucial question in check-kiting,” the court concluded, “is whether the defendant intended to write checks which he could not reasonably expect to cover and thereby defraud the bank, or whether he was genuinely involved in the process of depositing funds and then making legitimate withdrawals against them.” Id., at 38. The jury convicted petitioner on both counts, and he was sentenced to six months’ incarceration on the second § 1014 count. For the first § 1014 count he was placed on five years’ probation, to begin upon his release from confinement. App. 39. Among other things, petitioner argued on appeal that the indictment did not state a violation of § 1014. The Court of Appeals rejected this contention, however, concluding that petitioner’s actions “constitute classic incidents of check kiting.” 639 F. 2d 1311, 1319 (CA5 1981). In line with its earlier decision in United States v. Payne, 602 F. 2d 1215 (CA5 1979), cert. denied, 445 U. S. 903 (1980), the court found such action proscribed by the statute. We granted certiorari, limited to Questions 3 and 4 presented by the petition, in order to resolve a conflict concerning the reach of § 1014. 454 U. S. 1030 and 1096 (1981). II To obtain a conviction under § 1014, the Government must establish two propositions: it must demonstrate (1) that the defendant made a “false statement or report,” or “willfully overvalue^] any land, property or security,” and (2) that he did so “for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of [a described financial institution] upon any application, advance, . . . commitment, or loan.” We conclude that petitioner’s convictions under § 1014 cannot stand, because the Government has failed to meet the first of these burdens. A Although petitioner deposited several checks that were not supported by sufficient funds, that course of conduct did not involve the making of a “false statement,” for a simple reason: technically speaking, a check is not a factual assertion at all, and therefore cannot be characterized as “true” or “false.” Petitioner’s bank checks served only to direct the drawee banks to pay the face amounts to the bearer, while committing petitioner to make good the obligations if the banks dishonored the drafts. Each check did not, in terms, make any representation as to the state of petitioner’s bank balance. As defined in the Uniform Commercial Code, 2 U. L. A. 17 (1977), a check is simply “a draft drawn on a bank and payable on demand,” § 3-104(2)(b), which “contain[s] an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money,” § 3-104(l)(b). As such, “[t]he drawer engages that upon dishonor of the draft and any necessary notice of dishonor or protest he will pay the amount of the draft to the holder.” §3-413(2), 2 U. L. A. 424 (1977). The Code also makes clear, however, that “[a] check or other draft does not of itself operate as an assignment of any funds in the hands of the drawee available for its payment, and the drawee is not liable on the instrument until he accepts it.” §3-409(1), 2 U. L. A. 408 (1977). Louisiana, the site of petitioner’s unfortunate banking career, embraces verbatim each of these definitions. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 10:3-104, 10:3-409, 10:3-413 (West Supp. 1982). For similar reasons, we conclude that petitioner’s actions cannot be regarded as “overvalu[ing]” property or a security. Even assuming that petitioner’s checks were property or a security as defined by § 1014, the value legally placed upon them was the value of petitioner’s obligation; as defined by Louisiana law, that is the only meaning actually attributable to a bank check. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 10:3-409(1), 10:3-413(2) (West Supp. 1982). In a literal sense, then, the face amounts of the checks were their “values.” The foregoing description of bank checks is concededly a technical one, and the Government therefore argues with some force that a drawer is generally understood to represent that he “currently has funds on deposit sufficient to cover the face value of the check.” Brief for United States 19. See United States v. Payne, 602 F. 2d, at 1218. If the drawer has insufficient funds in his account at the moment the check is presented, the Government continues, he effectively has made a “false statement” to the recipient. While this broader reading of § 1014 is plausible, we are not persuaded that it is the preferable or intended one. It “slights the wording of the statute,” United States v. Enmons, 410 U. S. 396, 399 (1973), for, as we have noted, a check is literally not a “statement” at all. In any event, whatever the general understanding of a check’s function, “false statement” is not a term that, in common usage, is often applied to characterize “bad checks.” And, when interpreting a criminal statute that does not explicitly reach the conduct in question, we are reluctant to base an expansive reading on inferences drawn from subjective and variable “understandings.” Equally as important, the Government’s interpretation of § 1014 would make a surprisingly broad range of unremarkable conduct a violation of federal law. While the Court of Appeals addressed itself only to check kiting, its ruling has wider implications: it means that any check, knowingly supported by insufficient funds, deposited in a federally insured bank could give rise to criminal liability, whether or not the drawer had an intent to defraud. Under the Court of Appeals’ approach, the violation of § 1014 is not the scheme to pass a number of bad checks; it is the presentation of one false statement — that is, one check that at the moment of deposit is not supported by sufficient funds — to a federally insured bank. The United States acknowledged as much at oral argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 40. Indeed, each individual count of the indictment in this case stated only that petitioner knowingly had deposited a single check that was supported by insufficient funds, not that he had engaged in an extended scheme to obtain credit fraudulently. Yet, if Congress really set out to enact a national bad check law in § 1014, it did so with a peculiar choice of language and in an unusually backhanded manner. Federal action was not necessary to interdict the deposit of bad checks, for, as Congress surely knew, fraudulent checking activities already were addressed in comprehensive fashion by state law. See Comment, Insufficient Funds Checks in the Criminal Area: Elements, Issues, and Proposals, 38 Mo. L. Rev. 432 (1973). Absent support in the legislative history for the proposition that § 1014 was “designed to have general application to the passing of worthless checks,” United States v. Krown, 675 F. 2d 46, 50 (CA2 1982), we are not prepared to hold petitioner’s conduct proscribed by that particular statute. B In the 1948 codification of Title 18 of the United States Code, 62 Stat. 683, § 1014 reduced 13 existing statutes, which criminalized fraudulent practices directed at a variety of financial and credit institutions, to a single section. See 18 U. S. C. §1014, Historical and Revision Notes. Of the originally enumerated institutions, only two — the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, see 15 U. S. C. § 616(a) (1946 ed.), and the Federal Reserve Banks, see 12 U. S. C. §596 (1946 ed.) — performed duties other than the making of farm and home loans, and neither of those two organizations accepted checks for deposit from private customers. See United States v. Sabatino, 485 F. 2d 540, 548 (CA2 1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 948 (1974); United States v. Edwards, 455 F. Supp. 1354, 1357 (MD Pa. 1978). It is evident, then, that bad checks were not among the “false statements” or “overvalued property” originally addressed by the statute. While Congress has added and subtracted certain institutions to and from the list covered by § 1014 over the intervening years, no changes have been made in the type of transactions proscribed by the provision. The legislative history does not demand a broader reading of the statute. The amendments adding institutions to § 1014’s list attracted little attention in Congress and were dealt with summarily; at no point was it suggested that the statute should be applicable to anything other than representations made in connection with conventional loan or related transactions. In 1964, for example, when Congress, by Pub. L. 88-353, § 5, 78 Stat. 269, added Federal Credit Unions to the statutory list, §1014 was described as barring “false statements or willful overvaluations in connection with applications, loans, and the like.” S. Rep. No. 1078, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1964). Thus, the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency declared that § 1014 “is designed primarily to apply to borrowers from Federal agencies or federally chartered organizations.” Id., at 4. Similarly, the first of two 1970 amendments, which added state-chartered credit unions to the statutory list, Pub. L. 91-468, § 7, 84 Stat. 1017, was characterized simply as “relating to false statements in loan and credit applications.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1457, p. 21 (1970). A second 1970 amendment, Pub. L. 91-609, § 915, 84 Stat. 1815, added banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Home Loan Banks, and institutions insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, for the first time listing institutions that engaged in commercial checking. But there was no contemporaneous congressional recognition of the substantial expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction that would attend the proscription of bad checks. To the contrary, the Reports accompanying the amendment stated simply that the addition “would describe more explicitly the institutions which are covered by 18 U. S. C. § 1014, which provides penalties for making false statements or reports in connection with loans or other similar transactions.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1556, p. 35 (1970). See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-1784, p. 66 (1970). Congressional debate was directed only at the addition of federally insured savings and loan institutions, which was said to “mak[e] it a Federal crime to submit false data to an insured savings and loan on the true value of a property on which a mortgage is to be granted.” 116 Cong. Rec. 42633 (1970) (remarks of Rep. Sullivan). Given this background — a statute that is not unambiguous in its terms and that if applied here would render a wide range of conduct violative of federal law, a legislative history that fails to evidence congressional awareness of the statute’s claimed scope, and a subject matter that traditionally has been regulated by state law — we believe that a narrow interpretation of §1014 would be consistent with our usual approach to the construction of criminal statutes. The Court has emphasized that “'when choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite.’” United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 347 (1971), quoting United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 344 U. S. 218, 221-222 (1952). To be sure, the rule of lenity does not give courts license to disregard otherwise applicable enactments. But in a case such as this one, where both readings of § 1014 are plausible, “it would require statutory language much more explicit than that before us here to lead to the conclusion that Congress intended to put the Federal Government in the business of policing the” deposit of bad checks. United States v. Enmons, 410 U. S., at 411. 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. As the Government explains, a check-kiting scheme typically works as follows: “The check kiter opens an account at Bank A with a nominal deposit. He then writes a check on that account for a large sum, such as $50,000. The check kiter then opens an account at Bank B and deposits the $50,000 check from Bank A in that account. At the time of deposit, the cheek is not supported by sufficient funds in the account at Bank A. However, Bank B, unaware of this fact, gives the check kiter immediate credit on his account at Bank B. During the several-day period that the check on Bank A is being processed for collection from that bank, the check kiter writes a $50,000 cheek on his account at Bank B and deposits it into his account at Bank A. At the time of the deposit of that check, Bank A gives the check kiter immediate credit on his account there, and on the basis of that grant of credit pays the original $50,000 check when it is presented for collection. “By repeating this scheme, or some variation of it, the check kiter can use the $50,000 credit originally given by Bank B as an interest-free loan for an extended period of time. In effect, the check kiter can take advantage of the several-day period required for the transmittal, processing, and payment of checks from accounts in different banks . . . .” Brief for United States 12-13. Petitioner also was charged with — and thereafter convicted of — one count of misapplying bank funds, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 656. The validity of that conviction, which was affirmed on appeal, is not before us. Neither of the § 1014 counts of the indictment expressly charged petitioner with making a “false statement.” The first count, however, did allege that he “presented said check for deposit at Pelican State Bank . . . and represented and caused to be represented to said bank that said check was of a value equal to the face amount of the check, when in truth and fact, as the [petitioner] then well knew, there were no sufficient funds in the account of W. A. Williams at the Winn State Bank and Trust Company, to cover said check.” App. 3. Similar language was employed in the second § 1014 count. Id., at 4. The sentence of probation also applied to petitioner’s conviction for misapplication of bank funds. See n. 2, supra. See United States v. Sher, 657 F. 2d 28 (CA3 1981), cert. pending, No. 81-1047 (holding that § 1014 does not proscribe check kiting). Cf. United States v. Krown, 675 F. 2d 46, 50 (CA2 1982) (noting the conflict). Unlike many state statutes that do proscribe conduct such as that engaged in by petitioner, the federal scheme obviously does not in terms reach the deposit of checks that are supported by insufficient funds. See Comment, Insufficient Funds Checks in the Criminal Area: Elements, Issues, and Proposals, 38 Mo. L. Rev. 432 (1973). That is particularly true where, as here, it is not immediately clear what “common understanding” would recognize as the implied representation of the act of depositing one’s own check. The United States suggests that one who deposits a check represents that he “currently has funds on deposit sufficient to cover the face value.” Brief for United States 19. But it would be equally plausible to suggest that many people understand a check to represent that the drawer will have sufficient funds deposited in his account by the time the check clears, or that the drawer will make good the face value of the draft if it is dishonored by the bank. We therefore find “common understanding” a particularly fragile foundation upon which to base an interpretation of § 1014. Justice Marshall’s dissent does not fully respond to this point. That opinion, like the Government’s brief, emphasizes that petitioner’s “conduct was wrongful,” post, at 293, and deals only with § 1014’s application to check kiting. See also post, at 294, 295, 299, 300, and 301. Indeed, the dissent seems to suggest that that statute would not reach the conduct of a defendant who “wrote a check on an account containing insufficient funds with the good-faith intention to deposit in that account an amount that would cover the check before it cleared in the normal course of business.” Post, at 292. Accepting Justice Marshall’s theory, however, would bring such conduct within the literal language of the statute, for a “false statement” would have been submitted with the hope of inducing a bank to “advance” funds. While the dissent attempts to avoid this by suggesting that there would be no violation of § 1014 absent an intent “to defraud,” post, at 301, n. 4, the language of the statute imposes no such intent requirement. And as we emphasize above, we believe that the wording of § 1014 would be a peculiar choice of terms if Congress wished to proscribe such conduct. Justice Marshall’s dissent rests entirely on the proposition that petitioner’s conduct falls within the “plain language” of § 1014. Post, at 293. See also post, at 301, 302, and 305-306. In our view, that literally is not true. And even if one looks to the “common understanding” so emphasized by Justice Marshall, post, at 296-298, the statute is at best ambiguous, for we doubt that the public typically describes bad checks as “false statements.” These included the Farmers’ Home Corporation, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve Banks, the Farm Credit Administration, Federal Credit Banks, the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation, the National Agricultural Credit Corporation, Federal Home Loan Banks, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and related institutions. See 7 U. S. C. §§ 1026(a), 1514(a) (1946 ed.); 12 U. S. C. §§ 596, 981, 1122, 1123, 1138d(a), 1248, 1312, 1313, 1441(a), 1467(a) (1946 ed.); 15 U. S. C. § 616(a) (1946 ed.). The Committee added ambiguously that the statute “is not, however, limited by its terms to borrowers and would seem also to apply to others, including for example, officers and employees of the agencies and institutions named.” S. Rep. No. 1078, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1964). Also added to the list in 1970 were the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation themselves, as well as the Administrator of the National Credit Union Administration. Pub. L. 91-609, § 915, 84 Stat. 1815. We therefore find it somewhat surprising that Justice Marshall’s dissenting opinion takes us to task for noting the applicability of the rule of lenity to the interpretation of what we believe to be an ambiguous statute. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. These consolidated cases again present the difficult question whether a charge of contempt against a witness for refusal to answer questions before a grand jury requires an indictment and jury trial. In both cases, contempt proceedings were instituted after petitioners had refused to testify under immunity granted by the respective District Courts. Neither petitioner was indicted or given a jury trial. Both were found guilty and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, with the proviso that if either answered the questions before his sentence ended, he would be released. The opinion of the District Court in Pappadio is reported at 235 F. Supp. 887 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1964). In Shillitani, the District Court simply entered an order, which is not reported. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed each conviction in separate opinions. United States v. Pappadio, 346 F. 2d 5 (1965); United States v. Shillitani, 345 F. 2d 290 (1965). We granted certiorari to review the validity of the sentences imposed in both cases. 382 U. S. 913, 916 (1965). We hold that the conditional nature of these sentences renders each of the actions a civil contempt proceeding, for which indictment and jury trial are not constitutionally required. However, since the term of the grand jury before which petitioners were contumacious has expired, the judgments below must be vacated and the cases remanded for dismissal. I. No. 412, Shillitani v. United States. Shillitani appeared under subpoena before a grand jury investigating possible violations of the federal narcotics laws. On three occasions he refused to answer questions, invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. At the Government's request, the District Judge then granted him immunity under the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, 18 U. S. C. § 1406 (1964 ed.), and ordered him to answer certain questions. When called before the grand jury again, Shillitani persisted in his refusal. Thereafter, in a proceeding under Rule 42 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the District Court found him guilty of criminal contempt. No jury trial was requested. Shillitani was sentenced to prison for two years “or until the further order of this Court. Should . . . Mr. Shillitani answer those questions before the expiration of said sentence, or the discharge of the said grand jury, whichever may first occur, the further order of this Court may be made terminating the sentence of imprisonment.” The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Shillitani’s constitutional objection to the imposition of a two-year sentence without indictment or trial by jury on the basis that “the contempt proceedings preceded any compliance” and the “sentence contained a purge clause.” It further construed the sentence as giving Shillitani an unqualified right to be released if and when he obeyed the order to testify. 345 F. 2d, at 294. No. 442, Pappadio v. United States. Pappadio appeared under subpoena before the same grand jury. He also refused three times to answer numerous questions on the ground that the answers would incriminate him. He was then granted immunity under 18 U. S. C. § 1406 and directed to testify. He continued to refuse to answer any questions except those of identification. In opposition to the grand jury’s subsequent request that the District Court require Pappadio to cooperate, his attorney claimed that he should not be called as a witness so long as a 1958 indictment charging him with conspiracy to violate the narcotics laws was pending. The District Court held that Pappadio had complete immunity, including any criminal proceeding then pending, and ordered him to answer all questions previously asked. Upon return to the grand jury, Pappadio did respond to numerous questions, but still refused to answer five questions pertaining to his alleged association with a group headed by Thomas Lucchese which engaged in narcotics traffic and other illicit activities. An order to show cause was issued, Pappadio’s demand for a jury was denied, and the District Court found him in contempt for willful disobedience of its order to testify. He received a sentence almost identical to that given Shillitani, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the same grounds. II. We believe that the character and purpose of these actions clearly render them civil rather than criminal contempt proceedings. See Penfield Co. v. Securities & Exchange Comm’n, 330 U. S. 585, 590 (1947). As the distinction was phrased in Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 449 (1911), the act of disobedience consisted solely “in refusing to do what had been ordered,” i. e., to answer the questions, not “in doing what had been prohibited.” And the judgments imposed conditional imprisonment for the obvious purpose of compelling the witnesses to obey the orders to testify. When the petitioners carry “the keys of their prison in their own pockets,” In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 461 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1902), the action “is essentially a civil remedy designed for the benefit of other parties and has quite properly been exercised for centuries to secure compliance with judicial decrees.” Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 197 (1958) (Black, J., dissenting). In short, if the petitioners had chosen to obey the order they would not have faced jail. This is evident from the statement of the District Judge at the time he sentenced Shillitani: “I want to make it clear that the sentence of the Court is not intended so much by way of punishment as it is intended solely to secure for the grand jury answers to the questions that have been asked of you.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Court of Appeals also interpreted the sentence as conditional: “We construe the judgment in this case.. . . to mean that defendant has an unqualified right to be released from prison once he obeys Judge Wyatt's order. As thus construed, the sentence was entirely proper.” 345 F. 2d, at 294. While all of the parties before this Court briefed the issues with reference to criminal contempt, counsel for petitioners and the Government conceded at argument that the contempt orders were remedial, and, therefore, might well be deemed civil in nature rather than criminal. The fact that both the District Court and the Court of Appeals called petitioners’ conduct “criminal contempt” does not disturb our conclusion. Courts often speak in terms of criminal contempt and punishment for remedial purposes. See, e. g., United States v. Onan, 190 F. 2d 1 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1951). “It is not the fact of punishment but rather its character and purpose that often serve to distinguish” civil from criminal contempt. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 441 (1911). Despite the fact that Shillitani and Pappadio were ordered imprisoned for a definite period, their sentences were clearly intended to operate in a prospective manner — to coerce, rather than punish. As such, they relate to civil contempt. While any imprisonment, of course, has punitive and deterrent effects, it must be viewed as remedial if the court conditions release upon the contemnor’s willingness to testify. See Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33, 42-43 (1941). The test may be stated as: what does the court primarily seek to accomplish by imposing sentence? Here the purposé was to obtain answers to the questions for the grand jury. III. There can be no question that courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil contempt. United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 330-332 (1947) (Black and Douglas, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ; United States v. Barnett, 376 U. S. 681, 753-754 (1964) (Goldberg, J., dissenting). And it is essential that courts be able to compel the appearance and testimony of witnesses. United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, 331 (1950). A grand jury subpoena must command the same respect. Cf. Levine v. United States, 362 U. S. 610, 617 (1960). Where contempt consists of a refusal to obey a court order to testify at any stage in judicial proceedings, the witness may be confined until compliance. McCrone v. United States, 307 U. S. 61 (1939); Giancana v. United States, 352 F. 2d 921 (C. A. 7th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 959 (1965). The conditional nature of the imprisonment — based entirely upon the contemnor’s continued defiance — justifies holding civil contempt proceedings absent the safeguards of indictment and jury, Uphaus v. Wyman, 364 U. S. 388, 403-404 (1960) (Douglas, J., dissenting), provided that the usual due process requirements are met. However, the justification for coercive imprisonment as applied to civil contempt depends upon the ability of the contemnor to comply with the court’s order. Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U. S. 56, 76 (1948). Where the grand jury has been finally discharged, a contumacious witness can no longer be confined since he then has no further opportunity to purge himself of contempt. Accordingly, the contempt orders entered against Shillitani and Pappadio were improper insofar as they imposed sentences that extended beyond the cessation of the grand jury’s inquiry into petitioners’ activities. Having sought to deal only with civil contempt, the District Courts lacked authority to imprison petitioners for a period longer than the term of the grand jury. This limitation accords with the doctrine that a court must exercise “[t]he least possible power adequate to the end proposed.” Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231 (1821); In re Michael, 326 U. S. 224, 227 (1945). The objection that the length of imprisonment thus depends upon fortuitous circumstances, such as the life of the grand jury and when a witness appears, has no relevance to the present situation. That argument would apply only to unconditional imprisonment for punitive purposes, which involves different considerations. Once the grand jury ceases to function, the rationale for civil contempt vanishes, and the contemnor has to be released. Since the term of the grand jury in these cases expired in March 1965, the judgments here for review are vacated, and the cases remanded with directions that they be dismissed. It is so ordered. Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result. Mr. Justice White took no part in the decision of these cases. [For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, see post, p. 380.] This rule provides: “Disposition Upon Notice and Hearing. A criminal contempt except as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule shall be prosecuted on notice. The notice shall state the time and place of hearing, allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense, and shall state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and describe it as such. The notice shall be given orally by the judge in open court in the presence of the defendant or, on application of the United States attorney or of an attorney appointed by the court for that purpose, by an order to show cause or an order of arrest. The defendant is entitled to a trial by jury in any case in which an act of Congress so provides. He is entitled to admission to bail as provided in these rules. If the contempt charged involves disrespect to or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the trial or hearing except with the defendant’s consent. Upon a verdict or finding of guilt the court shall enter an order fixing the punishment.” These questions were as follows: “Mr. Pappadio, who were the attorneys who were present at these meetings?” “Aside from the meetings which you described, which took place on the street, where else did you meet with Lucchese?” “Who else was present at these meetings besides yourself, Lucchese and the attorneys?” “All right; How many of such meetings were there?” “Where did the meetings take place?” Because of the similarity in language between the two contempt orders, it is reasonable to assume that the Court of Appeals also construed Pappadio’s sentence as giving him an absolute right to be released upon compliance, although the opinion was silent on this point. The record of the contempt proceedings in Pappadio’s ease further indicates that the District Judge viewed the matter as civil contempt. The following colloquy offers one example: “Mr. Lawler: Your Honor, since the primary purpose of this investigation is to obtain testimony or to obtain evidence so that indictments might be filed or voted upon, might I suggest . . . that you include a clause in the sentence that if Mr. Pappadio does answer the questions as directed, that a further application may be made to your Honor to reconsider this sentence, so that we will have some coercive effect on Mr. Pappadio. “The Court: Yes, I shall adopt the proposal presented by Assistant United States Attorney Lawler, and my decision shall be deemed to include a provision reading in the form and manner proposed . . . .” The Assistant United States Attorney again stressed the coercive function of the sentences when opposing applications for bail pending appeal by both Shillitani and Pappadio. On the contrary, a criminal contempt proceeding would be characterized by the imposition of an unconditional sentence for punishment or deterrence. See Cheff v. Schnackenberg, post, at 377. The court may also impose a determinate sentence which includes a purge clause. This type of sentence would benefit an incorrigible witness. It raises none of the problems surrounding a judicial command that unless the witness testifies within a specified time he will be imprisoned for a term of years. See Reina v. United States, 364 U. S. 507 (1960). See Parker v. United States, 153 F. 2d 66, 70 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1946). By the same token, the sentences of imprisonment may be continued or reimposed if the witnesses adhere to their refusal to testify before a successor grand jury. This doctrine further requires that the trial judge first consider the feasibility of coercing testimony through the imposition of civil contempt. The judge should resort to criminal sanctions only after he determines, for good reason, that the civil remedy would be inappropriate. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Me. Justice Burton delivered the opinion of the Court. As in First Iowa Coop. v. Federal Power Commission, 328 U. S. 152, this case illustrates the integration of the federal and state jurisdictions in licensing water power projects under the Federal Power Act. In the First Iowa case we sustained the authority of the Commission to license a power project to use navigable waters of the United States located in Iowa. Here, without finding that the waters are navigable, the Commission has issued a comparable license for a power project to use waters on lands constituting reservations of the United States located in Oregon. The State of Oregon questions the authority of the Commission to do this and the adequacy of the provisions approved by the Commission for the conservation of anadromous fish. For the reasons hereafter stated, we sustain the Commission. In 1949, the Northwest Power Supply Company of Portland, Oregon, applied to the Federal Power Commission for a license to construct, operate and maintain a hydroelectric plant, constituting Pelton Project No. 2030, on reserved lands of the United States on the Deschutes River in Oregon, and, in 1951, the Portland General Electric Company of Portland, Oregon, succeeded to a supplementary application for that license. The Pelton Project is designed to include a concrete dam 205 feet high and a powerhouse containing three 36,000-kilowatt generators. It is to be built across the Deschutes River on reserved lands of the United States located below the junction of its Metolius and Crooked River tributaries. The western terminus of the dam is to occupy lands, within the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, which have been reserved by the United States for power purposes since 1910 and 1913. The eastern terminus of the dam is to be on lands of the United States which, at least since 1909, have been withdrawn from entry under the public land laws and reserved for power purposes. The project calls for no permanent diversion of water as the entire flow of the river will run through or over the dam into the natural bed of the stream. This dam will make available the head and volume of water required for the project and the water impounded by it will create a narrow reservoir, submerging lands the title to which is or will be in the United States. Variations and interruptions in the flow of the stream, caused by temporary storage or use of water for power purposes, are to be controlled by a “reregulating dam” approved by the Commission and located on private property, to be acquired, about three miles below the power dam. No objection is made to the reregulating dam. To the extent that access to existing spawning grounds for anadromous fish is cut off by the power dam, other facilities on private property, to be acquired, are to be constructed and maintained on terms approved by the Commission and designed to develop an equal or greater fish population. Opportunities for recreational uses of the area are to be enhanced and no issue as to water pollution is before us. The State of Oregon, the Fish Commission of Oregon, the Oregon State Game Commission and the Oregon Division of the Izaak Walton League intervened before the Commission and each filed objections to the granting of the license. Some of their objections related to the authority of the Commission to grant the license and others to the suitability of the proposed fish conservation facilities. Following extended hearings, the Commission’s presiding examiner recommended the license. After exceptions to that recommendation the Commission issued its opinion and an order granting the license. 10 F. P. C. 445, 450, 92 P. U. R. (N. S.) 247. The Commission found that a public need exists for the early completion of the project to meet a severe power shortage in the Pacific Northwest. It found also that the project is in the public interest, will provide for comprehensive development of the affected stretch of the Deschutes River, and will be consistent with further comprehensive development of that stream and of the Columbia Basin. It held that the improvements will contribute valuable public benefits which will not be available if the river is maintained in its present natural condition. The Commission stated that the project will be subject to all existing rights to the use of the waters of the river, whether perfected or not. It prescribed temporary measures to be taken to meet the needs of the anadromous fish during the construction of the project and approved certain permanent facilities, practices and expenditures in relation to such fish. The opinion stated “that no substantial evidence has been brought forward to show that the facilities proposed for conserving the fish will not maintain existing runs. Moreover, there are indications that the runs can be increased.” 10 F. P. C., at 450, 92 P. U. R. (N. S.), at 252. A rehearing being denied, the State and its agencies sought a review by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Portland General Electric Company intervened. That court, with one judge dissenting, set aside the Commission’s order. 211 F. 2d 347. It recognized the necessity of a license from the Federal Power Commission but held that Congress, by its public lands legislation, long ago had transferred to the State of Oregon such control over the use of nonnavigable waters that the sponsor of the Pelton Project must secure also the permission prescribed by the State. We granted certio-rari because of the public significance of the issues but denied leave to the Portland General Electric Company to intervene here. 348 U. S. 868. 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (1); 49 Stat. 860-861, 16 U. S. C. § 825l (b). Several States filed briefs as amici curiae, usually adopting as their own the brief filed by respondents. We divide our consideration of the issues into three parts. I. Applicability op the Federal Power Act. On its face, the Federal Power Act applies to this license as specifically as it did to the license in the First Iowa case. There the jurisdiction of the Commission turned almost entirely upon the navigability of the waters of the United States to which the license applied. Here the jurisdiction turns upon the ownership or control by the United States of the reserved lands on which the licensed project is to be located. The authority to issue licenses in relation to navigable waters of the United States springs from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The authority to do so in relation to public lands and reservations of the United States springs from the Property Clause — “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States . . . .” Art. IV, § 3. In the instant case the project is to occupy lands which come within the term “reservations,” as distinguished from “public lands.” In the Federal Power Act, each has its established meaning. “Public lands” are lands subject to private appropriation and disposal under public land laws. “Reservations” are not so subject. The title to the lands upon which the eastern terminus of the dam is to rest has been in the United States since the cession by Great Britain of the area now comprising the State of Oregon. Even if formerly they may have been open to private appropriation as “public lands,” they were withdrawn from such availability before any vested interests conflicting with the Pelton Project were acquired. Title to the bed of the Deschutes River is also in the United States. Since the Indian Treaty of 1855, the lands within the Indian reservation, upon which the western end of the dam will rest, have been reserved for the use of the Indians. More recently they were reserved for power purposes and the Indians have given their consent to the project before us. Accordingly, there is no issue here as to whether or not the title to the tribal lands is in the United States. There thus remains no question as to the constitutional and statutory authority of the Federal Power Commission to grant a valid license for a power project on reserved lands of the United States, provided that, as required by the Act, the use of the water does not conflict with vested rights of others. To allow Oregon to veto such use, by requiring the State’s additional permission, would result in the very duplication of regulatory control precluded by the First Iowa decision. 328 U. S. 152, 177-179. No such duplication of authority is called for by the Act. The Court of Appeals in the instant case agrees. 211 F. 2d, at 351. And see Washington Department of Game v. Federal Power Commission, 207 F. 2d 391, 395-396. Authorization of this project, therefore, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission, unless that jurisdiction is modified by other federal legislation. See United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 703; Gutierres v. Albuquerque Land Co., 188 U. S. 545, 554. II. Inapplicability of the Desert Land Act of 1877 and Related Acts. The State of Oregon argues that the Acts of July 26, 1866, July 9, 1870, and the Desert Land Act of 1877 constitute an express congressional delegation or conveyance to the State of the power to regulate the use of these waters. The argument is that these Acts preclude or restrict the scope of the jurisdiction, otherwise apparent on the face of the Federal Power Act, and require the consent of the State to a project such as the one before us. The nature and effect of these Acts have been discussed previously by this Court. The purpose of the Acts of 1866 and 1870 was governmental recognition and sanction of possessory rights on public lands asserted under local laws and customs. Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U. S. 453. The Desert Land Act severed, for purposes of private acquisition, soil and water rights on public lands, and provided that such water rights were to be acquired in the manner provided by the law of the State of location. California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U. S. 142. See also, Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U. S. 589, 611-616. It is not necessary for us, in the instant case, to pass upon the question whether this legislation constitutes the express delegation or conveyance of power that is claimed by the State, because these Acts are not applicable to the reserved lands and waters here involved. The Desert Land Act covers “sources of water supply upon the public lands . . . .” The lands before us in this case are not “public lands” but “reservations.” Even without that express restriction of the Desert Land Act to sources of water supply on public lands, these Acts would not apply to reserved lands. “It is a familiar principle of public land law that statutes providing generally for disposal of the public domain are inapplicable to lands which are not unqualifiedly subject to sale and disposition because they have been appropriated to some other purpose.” United States v. O’Donnell, 303 U. S. 501, 510. See also, United States v. Minnesota, 270 U. S. 181, 206. The instant lands certainly “are not unqualifiedly subject to sale and disposition . . . .” Accordingly, it is enough, for the instant case, to recognize that these Acts do not apply to this license, which relates only to the use of waters on reservations of the United States. III. Application op the Federal Power Act to This Project. Finally, respondents question the discretion used by the Commission in granting the license. They point to the consequences which the project will have beyond the limits of the reserved lands on which it will be located. The first consequence is the inevitable variation in, or the temporary interruption of, the flow of the stream. The Commission is satisfied that it has overcome this objection by its provision for a reregulating dam. It has approved the technical features involved and the site for that dam will be acquired in accordance with the property laws of Oregon. In this reregulation of the flow of the stream, the Commission acts on behalf of the people of Oregon, as well as all others, in seeing to it that the interests of all concerned are adequately protected. There remains the effect of the project upon anadro-mous fish which use these waters as spawning grounds. All agree that the 205-foot dam will cut off access of some fish to their natural spawning grounds above the dam and that such interruption cannot be overcome by fish ladders. However, the State does not flatly prohibit the construction of dams that cut off anadromous fish from their spawning or breeding grounds. One alternative, thus recognized, is the supplying of new breeding pools to which the fish can be removed at appropriate times. The Fish Commission of Oregon has denied a permit to the Portland General Electric Company to carry out its present proposal but there appears to be no disagreement as to the underlying principle involved. hereby authorized to grant such permit in its discretion, upon the condition that the person so applying for such permit shall convey to the state of Oregon a site of the size and dimensions satisfactory to the commission, at such place as may be selected by the commission, and erect thereon a hatchery and hatchery residence, according to plans and specifications to be furnished by the commission, and enter into an agreement with the commission, secured by a good and sufficient bond, to furnish all water and’ light, without expense, to operate said proposed hatchery; and no permit for the construction of any such dam shall be given by the commission until the person applying for such permit shall have actually conveyed said land to the state and erected said hatchery and hatchery residence in accordance with the said plans and specifications. . . .” (Italics supplied.) Ore. Comp. Laws, 1940, § 83-316. The applicant has agreed to provide facilities for conserving the runs of anadromous fish in accordance with plans approved by the Federal Power Commission. The capital cost of these facilities and of the reregulating dam, to be borne by the applicant, is estimated at $4,430,000. The total annual cost due to these facilities is estimated at $795,000. The Commission has found each of these estimates to be reasonable. Of the $795,000 annual cost, the applicant will bear $410,000 (cost of borrowed money, depreciation and taxes on the capital investment), and the $10,000 maintenance cost of the reregulating dam. In addition, it has offered to contribute $100,000 annually toward the estimated $375,000 cost of operation and maintenance of the fish conservation facilities, and the Commission has retained the power to fix the amount of the applicant’s contribution if a sum is not agreed upon. The care given to the preparation of this conservation program and the large investment to be made in it are impressive. It also is of interest that the Fish Commission of Oregon already is operating somewhat comparable but smaller facilities of this kind on the Metolius River. One argument against the project goes beyond the need to conserve the existing fish population. It is argued that the project will preclude the carrying out of certain plans for the Columbia River Basin which contemplate greatly enlarging the fish population in the Deschutes River area, by concentrating there other runs of fish not now using that river. While such an argument may properly be directed to the Federal Power Commission or to Congress, it is not one for us to answer upon the basis of existing legal rights. We conclude, therefore, that, on the facts here presented, the Federal Power Act is applicable in accordance with its terms, and that the Federal Power Commission has acted within its powers and its discretion in granting the license now before us. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is Reversed. Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 41 Stat. 1063, as amended, 49 Stat. 838, 16 U. S. C. §§ 791a-825r. Fish ascending rivers from the sea for breeding purposes. In this instance, especially salmon and steelhead trout. For an outline of the general problem presented, see Schwartz, Federalism and Anadromous Fish, 23 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 535. In 1924, the Columbia Valley Power Company, Inc., had applied to the Federal Power Commission for a license to develop Pelton Project No. 57 at substantially the same site. That license was issued but, due to the licensee’s failure to proceed with construction as required by the Commission, it was canceled in 1936. The Deschutes River is entirely within the State of Oregon. It drains the eastern slope of the Cascade Range and flows northward, across the lands of the United States here involved, to the Columbia River, which it meets about 15 miles above The Dalles. The Commission has made no findings as to its navigability or as to the relation between its flow and the navigability of other streams. Throughout its lower 130 miles, which include the project site, it flows in a narrow canyon with an average fall of 17.6 feet per mile and, apparently, it is generally recognized as incapable of sustaining navigation. Accordingly, throughout this litigation, the river has been treated by all concerned as not constituting “navigable waters” of the United States as defined in § 3 (8) of the Federal Power Act, 49 Stat. 838, 16 U. S. C. § 796 (8). We do not pass either upon that question or upon the relationship to interstate commerce of the proposed use of the waters of the river. The Warm Springs Indian Reservation was established by the Treaty of June 25, 1855, with the Indians in Middle Oregon. Ratified by the Senate March 8, 1859, and proclaimed by the President April 18, 1859, it secured to the Indians “the exclusive right of taking fish in the streams running through and bordering said reservation . . . .” 12 Stat. 963, 964. Oregon has recognized that it is bound by this Treaty. Anthony v. Veatch, 189 Ore. 462, 483-485, 220 P. 2d 493, 502-503. See also, United States v. Winans, 198 U. S. 371. Indian Power Site Reserve No. 2 was created November 1, 1910, and Indian Power Site Reserve No. 294 was created October 8, 1913, both by the Secretary of the Interior under an Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 855, 858. Power Site Reserve No. 66 was created December 30, 1909, by the Secretary of the Interior and made permanent by an Executive Order of July 2, 1910, under an Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 847. In addition, a reservation occurred in connection with the application made to the Federal Power Commission, in 1924, for a license for Pelton Project No. 57. Comparable withdrawals were made in 1949 and 1951 in connection with the present application. See § 24 of the Federal Power Act, 41 Stat. 1075-1076, and amendments, 16 U. S. C. § 818. “(44) Under present circumstances and conditions, and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter provided in the license, the project is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the conservation and preservation of the fish and wildlife resources, and for other beneficial public uses including recreational purposes. “(45) The Portland General Electric Co. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon and has submitted satisfactory evidence of compliance with the requirements of all applicable state laws insofar as necessary to effect the purposes of a license for the project.” 10 F. P. C., at 456. And see §§ 9 (b) and 10 (a) of the Federal Power Act, 41 Stat. 1068, 16 U. S. C. § 802 (b), and 49 Stat. 842, 16 U. S. C. § 803 (a). “Sec. 4. The Commission is hereby authorized and empowered— “(e) To issue licenses ... to any corporation organized under the laws of the United States or any State thereof ... for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining dams, water conduits, reservoirs, power houses, transmission lines, or other project works necessary or convenient for the development and improvement of navigation and for the development, transmission, and utilization of power across, along, from, or in any of the streams or other bodies of water over which Congress has jurisdiction under its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, or upon any part of the public lands and reservations of the United States . . . : Provided, That licenses shall be issued within any reservation only after a finding by the Commission that the license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which such reservation was created or acquired, and shall be subject to and contain such conditions as the Secretary of the department under whose supervision such reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservation: .... “Sec. 23. . . . “(b) It shall be unlawful for any person, State, or municipality, for the purpose of developing electric power, to construct, operate, or maintain any dam, water conduit, reservoir, power house, or other works incidental thereto across, along, or in any of the navigable waters of the United States, or upon any part of the public lands or reservations of the United States (including the Territories), or utilize the surplus water or water power from any Government dam, except under and in accordance with the terms of a permit or valid existing right-of-way granted prior to June 10, 1920, or a license granted pursuant to this Act. Any person, association, corporation, State, or municipality intending to construct a dam or other project works across, along, over, or in any stream or part thereof, other than those defined herein as navigable waters, and over which Congress has jurisdiction under its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States shall before such construction file declaration of such intention with the Commission, whereupon the Commission shall cause immediate investigation of such proposed construction to be made, and if upon investigation it shall find that the interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected by such proposed construction, such person, association, corporation, State, or municipality shall not construct, maintain, or operate such dam or other project works until it shall have applied for and shall have received a license under the provisions of this Act. If the Commission shall not so find, and if no public lands or reservations are affected, permission is hereby granted to construct such dam or other project works in such stream upon compliance with State laws.” (Italics supplied except for the initial word of the proviso.) 49 Stat. 839, 840, 846, 16 U. S. C. §§ 797 (e), 817. In what is somewhat of a companion case to the one before us, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has recognized that, despite contentions as to state control of the use of water and the conservancy of fish within the Columbia River Basin, the Federal Power Commission has the authority to make effective a license and to provide facilities for anadromous fish much as is here proposed, when the waters involved are navigable waters of the United States. Washington Department of Game v. Federal Power Commission, 207 F. 2d 391. We denied certiorari April 5, 1954. 347 U. S. 936. "Sec. 3. The words defined in this section shall have the following meanings for purposes of this Act, to wit: “(1) 'public lands’ means such lands and interest in lands owned by the United States as are subject to private appropriation and disposal under public land laws. It shall not include ‘reservations’, as hereinafter defined; “(2) ‘reservations’ means national forests, tribal lands embraced within Indian reservations, military reservations, and other lands and interests in lands owned by the United States, and withdrawn, reserved, or withheld from private appropriation and disposal under the public land laws; also lands and interests in lands acquired and held for any public purposes; but shall not include national monuments or national parks; . . . .” 49 Stat. 838, 16 U. S. C. § 796 (1) and (2). See note 6, supra. See United States v. Utah, 283 U. S. 64, 75. See note 5, supra. See Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co., 337 U. S. 86, 103-104; Minnesota v. United States, 305 U. S. 382, 386. “Sec. 27. That nothing herein contained shall be construed as affecting or intending to affect or in any way to interfere with the laws of the respective States relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation or for municipal or other uses, or any vested right acquired therein.” 41 Stat. 1077, 16 U. S. C. § 821. “To require the petitioner to secure the actual grant to it of a state permit ... as a condition precedent to securing a federal license for the same project under the Federal Power Act would vest in the Executive Council of Iowa a veto power over the federal project. Such a veto power easily could destroy the effectiveness of the Federal Act. It would subordinate to the control of the State the ‘comprehensive’ planning which the Act provides shall depend upon the judgment of the Federal Power Commission or other representatives of the Federal Government. “In the Federal Power Act there is a separation of those subjects which remain under the jurisdiction of the States from those subjects which the Constitution delegates to the United States and over which Congress vests the Federal Power Commission with authority to act. To the extent of this separation, the Act establishes a dual system of control. The duality of control consists merely of the division of the common enterprise between two cooperating agencies of government, each with final authority in its own jurisdiction. The duality does not require two agencies to share in the final decision of the same issue. Where the Federal Government supersedes the state government there is no suggestion that the two agencies both shall have final authority. . . . “The Act leaves to the States their traditional jurisdiction subject to the admittedly superior right of the Federal Government, through Congress, to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, administer the public lands and reservations of the United States and, in certain cases, exercise authority under the treaties of the United States.” First Iowa Coop. v. Federal Power Commission, 328 U. S. 152, 164, 167-168, 171. “Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same; and the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes aforesaid is hereby acknowledged and confirmed: Provided, however, That whenever, after the passage of this act, any person or persons shall, in the construction of any ditch or canal, injure or damage the possession of any settler on the public domain, the party committing such injury or damage shall be liable to the party injured for such injury or damage.” (Italics supplied except for the initial words of the enacting clause and the proviso.) 14 Stat. 253, see 43 U. S. C. § 661. “Sec. 17. . . . all patents granted, or preemption or homesteads allowed, shall be subject to any vested and accrued water rights, or rights to ditches and reservoirs used in connection with such water rights, as may have been acquired under or recognized by the ninth section of the act [14 Stat. 253, supra] of which this act is amenda-tory. . . .” (Italics supplied.) 16 Stat. 218, see 43 U. S. C. § 661. “. . . it shall be lawful for any citizen of the United States, or any person of requisite age ‘who may be entitled to become a citizen, and who has filed his declaration to become such’ and upon payment of twenty five cents per acre — to file a declaration under oath with the register and the receiver of the land district in which any desert land is situated, that he intends to reclaim a tract of desert land not exceeding one section, by conducting water upon the same, within the period of three years thereafter, Provided however that the right to the use of water by the person so conducting the same, on or to any tract of desert land of six hundred and forty acres shall depend upon bona fide prior appropriation: and such right shall not exceed the amount of water actually appropriated, and necessarily used for the purpose of irrigation and reclamation: and all surplus water over and above such actual appropriation and use, together with the water of all, lakes, rivers and other sources of water supply upon the public lands and not navigable, shall remain and be held free for the appropriation and use of the public for irrigation, mining and manufacturing purposes subject to existing rights. Said declaration shall describe particularly said section of land if surveyed, and, if unsur-veyed, shall describe the same as nearly as possible without a survey. At any time within the period of three years after filing said declaration, upon making satisfactory proof to the register and receiver of the reclamation of said tract of land in the manner aforesaid, and upon the payment to the receiver of the additional sum of one dollar per acre for a tract of land not exceeding six hundred and forty acres to any one person, a patent for the same shall be issued to him. Provided, that no person shall be permitted to enter more than one tract of land and not to exceed six hundred and forty acres which shall be in compact form.” (Italics supplied except for the initial words of the provisos.) 19 Stat. 377, 43 U. S. C. § 321. While the final approval of the engineering requirements of this feature rests with the Commission, there is no reason why the Commission and the State of Oregon, which also desires appropriate reregulation of the flow of the stream, should not seek a mutually satisfactory solution. In fact, the applicant for the federal license did submit its proposals for reregulation to the state authorities. The Oregon Fish Commission made a rough estimate of the annual runs of spring chinook and salmon passing the Pelton site, en route upstream, at 2,500 and of summer steelhead trout at 5,000. On the basis of this escapement past the project, the Fish Commission estimated the annual value of the Deschutes salmon and steel-head fishery attributable to the river above the Pelton site to be $177,375. 10 F. P. G, at 449, 92 P. U. R. (N. S.), at 252. “. . .In the event that any person desires to construct a dam in any of the streams of this state to a height that will make a fish ladder or fishway thereover impracticable, in the opinion of the [Fish] commission, then such person may make an application to the commission for a permit to construct such dam, and the commission is The Federal Power Commission here found that: “(29) There is nothing novel, unusual or out of the ordinary with respect to the fishery conservation facilities proposed by applicant. “(30) The applicant proposes to operate or arrange for the operation of the fish conservation facilities in accordance with approved methods. “(31) Construction, or operation and maintenance of the Pelton project will not be detrimental to the fishery resources below the reregulating dam. “(32) There is no substantial evidence in the record to show that the fishery facilities proposed by the applicant in accordance with the plans prepared by the Fish Commission of Oregon will not maintain existing runs, and there is a possibility that the run can be increased.” 10 F. P. C., at 455. In addition to its application to the Federal Power Commission, the Portland General Electric Company also sought approval of the Pelton Project by the Oregon Hydroelectric Commission. While we hold that such approval is not necessary, there is no reason why the company should not thus seek state as well as federal approval of the project. In its application for the Federal Power Commission license, the company referred to these simultaneous state proceedings, which did not reach a conclusion until shortly before the granting of the federal license. The license from the Hydroelectric Commission was denied because of the applicant's failure to secure the permit from the Fish Commission of Oregon which it had sought. The pertinent Oregon provisions are as follows: “From and after the taking effect of this act, no water-power project involving the use of the waters of any of the lakes, rivers, streams or other bodies of water within the state of Oregon, including waters over which this state has concurrent jurisdiction, for the generation of electricity, shall be begun or constructed except in conformity with the provisions hereof. “The [Oregon Hydroelectric] commission shall have power: . . . . “(b) To issue licenses, as hereinafter provided, to citizens of the United States, associations of citizens, private corporations organized under the laws of the United States or any state thereof, to appropriate, initiate, perfect, acquire and' hold the right to the use of the waters within the state, including the waters over which the state has concurrent jurisdiction, and to construct, operate and maintain dams, reservoirs, power houses, conduits, transmission lines, and all other works and structures necessary or convenient for the use of such waters in the generation and utilization of electricity.” Ore. Comp. Laws, 1940, §§ 119-103,119-106. See also, “The provisions of this act shall not apply to any waterpower project or development constructed by the government of the United States.” Id., § 119-101. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963), held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel on his first appeal as of right. In this case, we must decide whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the criminal defendant the effective assistance of counsel on such an appeal. I On March 21, 1976, a Kentucky jury found respondent guilty of trafficking in controlled substances. His retained counsel filed a timely notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, the state intermediate appellate court. Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure 1.095(a)(1) required appellants to serve on the appellate court the record on appeal and a “statement of appeal” that was to contain the names of appellants and appellees, counsel, and the trial judge, the date of judgment, the date of notice of appeal, and additional information. See England v. Spalding, 460 S. W. 2d 4, 6 (Ky. 1970) (Rule “is designed to assist this court in processing records and compliance is not jurisdictional”). Respondent’s counsel failed to file a statement of appeal when he filed his brief and the record on appeal on September 12, 1977. When the Commonwealth filed its brief, it included a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to file a statement of appeal. The Court of Appeals granted this motion because “appellant has failed to supply the information required by RAP 1.095(a)(1).” App. 37a. Respondent moved for reconsideration, arguing that all of the information necessary for a statement of appeal was in fact included in his brief, albeit in a somewhat different format. At the same time, respondent tendered a statement of appeal that formally complied with the Commonwealth Rules. The Court of Appeals summarily denied the motion for reconsideration. Respondent sought discretionary review in the Supreme Court of Kentucky, but the judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in a one-sentence order. In a final effort to gain state appellate review of his conviction, respondent moved the trial court to vacate the judgment or to grant a belated appeal. The trial court denied the motion. Respondent then sought federal habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He challenged the constitutionality of the Commonwealth’s dismissal of his appeal because of his lawyer’s failure to file the statement of appeal, on the ground that the dismissal deprived him of his right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court granted respondent a conditional writ of habeas corpus ordering his release unless the Commonwealth either reinstated his appeal or retried him. The Commonwealth appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reached no decision on the merits but instead remanded the case to the District Court for determination whether respondent had a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Lucey v. Seabold, 645 F. 2d 547 (1981). On remand, counsel for both parties stipulated that there was no equal protection issue in the case, the only issue being whether the state court’s action in dismissing respondent’s appeal violated the Due Process Clause. The District Court thereupon reissued the conditional writ of habeas corpus. On January 12, 1984, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Lucey v. Kavanaugh, 724 F. 2d 560. We granted the petition for cer-tiorari. 466 U. S. 949 (1984). We affirm. II Respondent has for the past seven years unsuccessfully pursued every avenue open to him in an effort to obtain a decision on the merits of his appeal and to prove that his conviction was unlawful. The Kentucky appellate courts’ refusal to hear him on the merits of his claim does not stem from any view of those merits, and respondent does not argue in this Court that those courts were constitutionally required to render judgment on the appeal in his favor. Rather the issue we must decide is whether the state court’s dismissal of the appeal, despite the ineffective assistance of respondent’s counsel on appeal, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Before analyzing the merits of respondent’s contention, it is appropriate to emphasize two limits on the scope of the question presented. First, there is no challenge to the District Court’s finding that respondent indeed received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. Respondent alleges — and petitioners do not deny in this Court — that his counsel’s failure to obey a simple court rule that could have such drastic consequences required this finding. We therefore need not decide the content of appropriate standards for judging claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Cf. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984); United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648 (1984). Second, the stipulation in the District Court on remand limits our inquiry solely to the validity of the state court’s action under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Respondent’s claim arises at the intersection of two lines of cases. In one line, we have held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a criminal appellant pursuing a first appeal as of right certain minimum safeguards necessary to make that appeal “adequate and effective,” see Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12, 20 (1956); among those safeguards is the right to counsel, see Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963). In the second line, we have held that the trial-level right to counsel, created by the Sixth Amendment and applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 344 (1963), comprehends the right to effective assistance of counsel. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 344 (1980). The question presented in this case is whether the appellate-level right to counsel also comprehends the right to effective assistance of counsel. A Almost a century ago, the Court held that the Constitution does not require States to grant appeals as of right to criminal defendants seeking to review alleged trial court errors. McKane v. Durston, 153 U. S. 684 (1894). Nonetheless, if a State has created appellate courts as “an integral part of the... system for finally adjudicating the guilt or innocence of a defendant,” Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S., at 18, the procedures used in deciding appeals must comport with the demands of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. In Griffin itself, a transcript of the trial court proceedings was a prerequisite to a decision on the merits of an appeal. See id., at 13-14. We held that the State must provide such a transcript to indigent criminal appellants who could not afford to buy one if that was the only way to assure an “adequate and effective” appeal. Id., at 20; see also Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, 357 U. S. 214, 215 (1958) (per curiam) (invalidating state rule giving free transcripts only to defendants who could convince trial judge that “justice will thereby be promoted”); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 252 (1959) (invalidating state requirement that indigent defendants pay fee before filing notice of appeal of conviction); Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477 (1963) (invalidating procedure whereby meaningful appeal was possible only if public defender requested a transcript); Draper v. Washington, 372 U. S. 487 (1963) (invalidating state procedure providing for free transcript only for a defendant who could satisfy the trial judge that his appeal was not frivolous). Just as a transcript may by rule or custom be a prerequisite to appellate review, the services of a lawyer will for virtually every layman be necessary to present an appeal in a form suitable for appellate consideration on the merits. See Griffin, supra, at 20. Therefore, Douglas v. California, supra, recognized that the principles of Griffin required a State that afforded a right of appeal to make that appeal more than a “meaningless ritual” by supplying an indigent appellant in a criminal case with an attorney. 372 U. S., at 358. This right to counsel is limited to the first appeal as of right, see Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600 (1974), and the attorney need not advance every argument, regardless of merit, urged by the appellant, see Jones v. Barnes, 463 U. S. 745 (1983). But the attorney must be available to assist in preparing and submitting a brief to the appellate court, Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U. S. 258 (1967) (per curiam), and must play the role of an active advocate, rather than a mere friend of the court assisting in a detached evaluation of the appellant’s claim. See Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967); see also Entsminger v. Iowa, 386 U. S. 748 (1967). B Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was “ ‘so fundamental and essential to a fair trial, and so, to due process of law, that it is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. ’ ” Id., at 340, quoting Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455, 465 (1942); see also Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938). Gideon rested on the “obvious truth” that lawyers are “necessities, not luxuries” in our adversarial system of criminal justice. 372 U. S., at 344. “The very premise of our adversary system of criminal justice is that partisan advocacy on both sides of a case will best promote the ultimate objective that the guilty be convicted and the innocent go free.” Herring v. New York, 422 U. S. 853, 862 (1975). The defendant’s liberty depends on his ability to present his case in the face of “the intricacies of the law and the advocacy of the public prosecutor,” United States v. Ash, 413 U. S. 300, 309 (1973); a criminal trial is thus not conducted in accord with due process of law unless the defendant has counsel to represent him. As we have made clear, the guarantee of counsel “cannot be satisfied by mere formal appointment,” Avery v. Alabama, 308 U. S. 444, 446 (1940). “That a person who happens to be a lawyer is present at trial alongside the accused, however, is not enough to satisfy the constitutional command.... An accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, whether retained or appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure that the trial is fair.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S., at 685; see also McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 771, n. 14 (1970) (“It has long been recognized that the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel”); Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S., at 344. Last Term, we emphasized this point while clarifying the standards to be used in assessing claims that trial counsel failed to provide effective representation. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648 (1984); Strickland v. Washington, supra. Because the right to counsel is so fundamental to a fair trial, the Constitution cannot tolerate trials in which counsel, though present in name, is unable to assist the defendant to obtain a fair decision on the merits. As the quotation from Strickland, supra, makes clear, the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel at trial applies to every criminal prosecution, without regard to whether counsel is retained or appointed. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, at 342-345. The constitutional mandate is addressed to the action of the State in obtaining a criminal conviction through a procedure that fails to meet the standards of due process of law. “Unless a defendant charged with a serious offense has counsel able to invoke the procedural and substantive safeguards that distinguish our system of justice, a serious risk of injustice infects the trial itself. When a State obtains a criminal conviction through such a trial, it is the State that unconstitutionally deprives the defendant of his liberty.” Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, at 343 (citations omitted). C The two lines of cases mentioned — the cases recognizing the right to counsel on a first appeal as of right and the cases recognizing that the right to counsel at trial includes a right to effective assistance of counsel — are dispositive of respondent’s claim. In bringing an appeal as of right from his conviction, a criminal defendant is attempting to demonstrate that the conviction, with its consequent drastic loss of liberty, is unlawful. To prosecute the appeal, a criminal appellant must face an adversary proceeding that — like a trial — is governed by intricate rules that to a layperson would be hopelessly forbidding. An unrepresented appellant — like an unrepresented defendant at trial — is unable to protect the vital interests at stake. To be sure, respondent did have nominal representation when he brought this appeal. But nominal representation on an appeal as of right — like nominal representation at trial — does not suffice to render the proceedings constitutionally adequate; a party whose counsel is unable to provide effective representation is in no better position than one who has no counsel at all. A first appeal as of right therefore is not adjudicated in accord with due process of law if the appellant does not have the effective assistance of an attorney. This result is hardly novel. The petitioners in both Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967), and Entsminger v. Iowa, 386 U. S. 748 (1967), claimed that, although represented in name by counsel, they had not received the type of assistance constitutionally required to render the appellate proceedings fair. In both cases, we agreed with the petitioners, holding that counsel’s failure in Anders to submit a brief on appeal and counsel’s waiver, in Entsminger of the petitioner’s right to a full transcript rendered the subsequent judgments against the petitioners unconstitutional. In short, the promise of Douglas that a criminal defendant has a right to counsel on appeal — like the promise of Gideon that a criminal defendant has a right to counsel at trial — would be a futile gesture unless it comprehended the right to the effective assistance of counsel. Recognition of the right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal requires that we affirm the Sixth Circuit’s decision in this case. Petitioners object that this holding will disable state courts from enforcing a wide range of vital procedural rules governing appeals. Counsel may, according to petitioners, disobey such rules with impunity if the state courts are precluded from enforcing them by dismissing the appeal. Petitioners’ concerns are exaggerated. The lower federal courts — and many state courts — overwhelmingly have reeog-nized a right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal. These decisions do not seem to have had dire consequences for the States’ ability to conduct appeals in accordance with reasonable procedural rules. Nor for that matter has the longstanding recognition of a right to effective assistance of counsel at trial — including the recognition in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335 (1980), that this right extended to retained as well as appointed counsel — rendered ineffectual the perhaps more complex procedural rules governing the conduct of trials. See also United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648 (1984); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). To the extent that a State believes its procedural rules are in jeopardy, numerous courses remain open. For example, a State may certainly enforce a vital procedural rule by imposing sanctions against the attorney, rather than against the client. Such a course may well be more effective than the alternative of refusing to decide the merits of an appeal and will reduce the possibility that a defendant who was powerless to obey the rules will serve a term of years in jail on an unlawful conviction. If instead a state court chooses to dismiss an appeal when an incompetent attorney has violated local rules, it may do so if such action does not intrude upon the client’s due process rights. For instance the Kentucky Supreme Court itself in other contexts has permitted a post-conviction attack on the trial judgment as “the appropriate remedy for frustrated right of appeal,” Hammershoy v. Commonwealth, 398 S. W. 2d 883 (1966); this is but one of several solutions that state and federal courts have permitted in similar cases. A system of appeal as of right is established precisely to assure that only those who are validly convicted have their freedom drastically curtailed. A State may not extinguish this right because another right of the appellant — the right to effective assistance of counsel— has been violated. Ill Petitioners urge that our reasoning rests on faulty premises. First, petitioners argue that because the Commonwealth need not establish a system of appeals as of right in the first instance, it is immune from all constitutional scrutiny when it chooses to have such a system. Second, petitioners deny that respondent had the right to counsel on his appeal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals because such an appeal was a “conditional appeal,” rather than an appeal as of right. Third, petitioners argue that, even if the Commonwealth’s actions here are subject to constitutional scrutiny and even if the appeal sought here was an appeal as of right, the Due Process Clause — upon which respondent’s claimed right to effective assistance of counsel is based — has no bearing on the Commonwealth’s actions in this case. We take up each of these three arguments in turn. A In support of their first argument, petitioners initially rely on McKane v. Durston, 153 U. S. 684 (1894), which held that a State need not provide a system of appellate review as of right at all. See also Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S., at 611; Jones v. Barnes, 463 U. S., at 751. Petitioners derive from this proposition the much broader principle that “whatever a state does or does not do on appeal — whether or not to have an appeal and if so, how to operate it — is of no due process concern to the Constitution....” Brief for Petitioners 23. It would follow that the Kentucky court’s action in cutting off respondent’s appeal because of his attorney’s incompetence would be permissible under the Due Process Clause. The right to appeal would be unique among state actions if it could be withdrawn without consideration of applicable due process norms. For instance, although a State may choose whether it will institute any given welfare program, it must operate whatever programs it does establish subject to the protections of the Due Process Clause. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 262 (1970). Similarly, a State has great discretion in setting policies governing parole decisions, but it must nonetheless make those decisions in accord with the Due Process Clause. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481-484 (1972). See also Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 374 (1971); Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535, 539 (1971); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 404 (1963); Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 165-166 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). In short, when a State opts to act in a field where its action has significant discretionary elements, it must nonetheless act in accord with the dictates of the Constitution — and, in particular, in accord with the Due Process Clause. B Petitioners’ second argument relies on the holding of Ross v. Moffitt, supra, that a criminal defendant has a right to counsel only on appeals as of right, not on discretionary state appeals. According to petitioners, the Kentucky courts permit criminal appeals only on condition that the appellant follow the local rules and statutes governing such appeals. See Brown v. Commonwealth, 551 S. W. 2d 557, 559 (1977). Therefore, the system does not establish an appeal as of right, but only a “conditional appeal” subject to dismissal if the state rules are violated. Petitioners conclude that if respondent has no appeal as of right, he has no right to counsel — or to effective assistance of counsel — on his “conditional appeal.” Under any reasonable interpretation of the line drawn in Ross between discretionary appeals and appeals as of right, a criminal defendant’s appeal of a conviction to the Kentucky Court of Appeals is an appeal as of right. Section 115 of the Kentucky Constitution provides that “[i]n all eases, civil and criminal, there shall be allowed as a matter of right at least one appeal to another court.” Unlike the appellant in the discretionary appeal in Ross, a criminal appellant in the Kentucky Court of Appeals typically has not had the benefit of a previously prepared trial transcript, a brief on the merits of the appeal, or a previous written opinion. See Ross, supra, at 615. In addition, petitioners fail to point to any source of Kentucky law indicating that a decision on the merits in an appeal like that of respondent — unlike the discretionary appeal in Ross — is contingent on a discretionary finding by the Court of Appeals that the case involves significant public or jurisprudential issues; the purpose of a first appeal in the Kentucky court system appears to be precisely to determine whether the individual defendant has been lawfully convicted. In short, a criminal defendant bringing an appeal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals has not previously had “an adequate opportunity to present his claims fairly in the context of the State’s appellate process.” See 417 U. S., at 616. It follows that for purposes of analysis under the Due Process Clause, respondent’s appeal was an appeal as of right, thus triggering the right to counsel recognized in Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963). C Finally, petitioners argue that even if the Due Process Clause does apply to the manner in which a State conducts its system of appeals and even if the appeal denied to respondent was an appeal as of right, the Due Process Clause nonetheless is not offended by the Kentucky court’s refusal to decide respondent’s appeal on the merits, because that Clause has no role to play in granting a criminal appellant the right to counsel — or a fortiori to the effective assistance of counsel — on appeal. Although it may seem that Douglas and its progeny defeat this argument, petitioners attempt to distinguish these cases by exploiting a seeming ambiguity in our previous decisions. According to the petitioners, the constitutional requirements recognized in Griffin, Douglas, and the cases that followed had their source in the Equal Protection Clause, and not the Due Process Clause, of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this contention, petitioners point out that all of the cases in the Griffin line have involved claims by indigent defendants that they have the same right to a decision on the merits of théir appeal as do wealthier defendants who are able to afford lawyers, transcripts, or the other prerequisites of a fair adjudication on the merits. As such, petitioners claim, the cases all should be understood as equal protection cases challenging the constitutional validity of the distinction made between rich and poor criminal defendants! Petitioners conclude that if the Due Process Clause permits criminal appeals as of right to be forfeited because the appellant has no transcript or no attorney, it surely permits such appeals to be forfeited when the appellant has an attorney who is unable to assist in prosecuting the appeal. Petitioners’ argument rests on a misunderstanding of the diverse sources of our holdings in this area. In Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S., at 608-609, we held that “[t]he precise rationale for the Griffin and Douglas lines of cases has never been explicitly stated, some support being derived from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and some from the Due Process Clause of that Amendment.” Accord, Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U. S. 660, 665 (1983) (“Due process and equal protection principles converge in the Court’s analysis in these cases”). See also Note, The Supreme Court, 1962 Term, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 62, 107, n. 13 (1963) (citing cases). This rather clear statement in Ross that the Due Process Clause played a significant role in prior decisions is well supported by the cases themselves. In Griffin, for instance, the State had in effect dismissed petitioner’s appeal because he could not afford a transcript. In establishing a system of appeal as of right, the State had implicitly determined that it was unwilling to curtail drastically a defendant’s liberty unless a second judicial decision-maker, the appellate court, was convinced that the conviction was in accord with law. But having decided that this determination was so important — having made the appeal the final step in the adjudication of guilt or innocence of the individual, see Griffin, 351 U. S., at 18 — the State could not in effect make it available only to the wealthy. Such a disposition violated equal protection principles because it distinguished between poor and rich with respect to such a vital right. But it also violated due process principles because it decided the appeal in a way that was arbitrary with respect to the issues involved. In Griffin, we noted that a court dispensing “justice” at the trial level by charging the defendant for the privilege of pleading not guilty “would make the constitutional promise of a fair trial a worthless thing.” Id., at 17. Deciding an appeal on the same basis would have the same obvious — and constitutionally fatal — defect. See also Douglas, supra, at 357 (procedure whereby indigent defendant must demonstrate merit of case before obtaining counsel on appeal “does not comport with fair procedure”); Anders v. California, 386 U. S., at 744 (“constitutional requirement of substantial equality and fair process can only be attained where counsel acts in the role of an active advocate”) (emphasis added). Our decisions in Anders, Entsminger v. Iowa, 386 U. S. 748 (1967), and Jones v. Barnes, 463 U. S. 745 (1983), are all inconsistent with petitioners’ interpretation. As noted above, all of these cases dealt with the responsibilities of an attorney representing an indigent criminal defendant on appeal. Although the Court reached a different result in Jones from that reached in Anders and Entsminger, all of these cases rest on the premise that a State must supply indigent criminal appellants with attorneys who can provide specified types of assistance — that is, that such appellants have a right to effective assistance of counsel. Petitioners claim that all such rights enjoyed by criminal appellants have their source in the Equal Protection Clause, and that such rights are all measured by the rights of nonindigent appellants. But if petitioners’ argument in the instant case is correct, nonindigent appellants themselves have no right to effective assistance of counsel. It would follow that indigent appellants also have no right to effective assistance of counsel, and all three of these cases erred in reaching the contrary conclusion. The lesson óf our cases, as we pointed out in Ross, supra, at 609, is that each Clause triggers a distinct inquiry: “ 'Due Process’ emphasizes fairness between the State and the individual dealing with the State, regardless of how other individuals in the same situation may be treated. 'Equal Protection,’ on the other hand, emphasizes disparity in treatment by a State between classes of individuals whose situations are arguably indistinguishable.” In cases like Griffin and Douglas, due process concerns were involved because the States involved had set up a system of appeals as of right but had refused to offer each defendant a fair opportunity to obtain an adjudication on the merits of his appeal. Equal protection concerns were involved because the State treated a class of defendants — indigent ones — differently for purposes of offering them a meaningful appeal. Both of these concerns were implicated in the Griffin and Douglas cases and both Clauses supported the decisions reached by this Court. Affirmed. Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure 1.090 provided: “In all cases the appellant shall file with the record on appeal a statement setting forth: (a) The name of each appellant and each appellee.... (b) The name and address of counsel for each appellant and each appellee, (c) The name and address of the trial judge, (d) The date the judgment appealed from was entered, and the page of the record on appeal on which it may be found.... (e) The date the notice of appeal was filed and the page of the record on appeal on which it may be found, (f) Such of the following facts, if any, as are true: (1) a notice of cross appeal has been filed; (2) a super-sedeas bond has been executed; (3) any reason the appeal should be advanced; (4) this is a suit involving multiple claims and judgment has been made final...; (5) there is another appeal pending in a case which involves the same transaction or occurrence, or a common question of law or fact, with which this appeal should be consolidated, giving the style of the other case; (6) the appellant is free on bond.” As set forth in Brief for Petitioners 9-10, n. 3. The argument headings on the appellate brief were: “I. It Was Error to Admit Photographs of the Appellant Into Evidence Which Lacked Any Probative Value and Served Only to Mislead and to Arouse the Passion and Prejudice of the Jury.... II. The Trial Court’s charge to the Jury Failed to Meet the Requirements of the Due Process of Law.... III. The Appellant Was Denied His Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial by Improper Conduct During the Trial and by Prejudicial Comments Made by the Prosecutor During His Summation.” App. 7a-9a. The merits of none of these claims are before us. The District Court also referred respondent’s counsel to the Board of Governors of the Kentucky State Bar Association for disciplinary proceedings for “attacking his own work product.” See id., at 44a. Respondent is not represented by the same counsel before this Court. The Commonwealth informed this Court five days prior to oral argument that respondent had been finally released from custody and his civil rights, including suffrage and the right to hold public office, restored as of May 10, 1983. However, respondent has not been pardoned and some collateral consequences of his conviction remain, including the possibility that the conviction would be used to impeach testimony he might give in a future proceeding and the possibility that it would be used to subject him to persistent felony offender prosecution if he should go to trial on any other felony charges in the future. This case is thus not moot. See Carrafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234, 238 (1968); Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 55-57 (1968). Seemingly, respondent entered the stipulation because his attorney on appeal had been retained, not appointed. Our cases dealing with the right to counsel — whether at trial or on appeal — have often focused on the defendant’s need for an attorney to meet the adversary presentation of the prosecutor. See, e. g., Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353, 358 (1963) (noting the benefit of “counsel’s examination into the record, research of the law, and marshalling of arguments on [client’s] behalf”). Such cases emphasize the defendant’s need for counsel in order to obtain a favorable decision. The facts of this case emphasize a different, albeit related, aspect of counsel’s role, that of expert professional whose assistance is necessary in a legal system governed by complex rules and procedures for the defendant to obtain a decision at all — much less a favorable decision — on the merits of the case. In a situation like that here, counsel’s failure was particularly egregious in that it essentially waived respondent’s opportunity to make a case on the merits; in this sense, it is difficult to distinguish respondent’s situation from that of someone who had no counsel at all. Cf. Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967); Entsminger v. Iowa, 386 U. S. 748 (1967). As Boss v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600 (1974), held, the considerations governing a discretionary appeal are somewhat different. See infra, at 401-402. Of course, the right to effective assistance of counsel is dependent on the right to counsel itself. See Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U. S. 586, 587-588 (1982) (per curiam) (“Since respondent had no constitutional right to counsel, he could not be deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by his retained counsel’s failure to file the application timely”) (footnote omitted). Moreover, Jones v. Barnes, 463 U. S. 745 (1983), adjudicated a similar claim “of ineffective assistance by appellate counsel.” Id., at 749. In Jones, the appellate attorney had failed to raise every issue requested by the criminal defendant. This Court rejected the claim, not because there was no right to effective assistance of appellate counsel, but because counsel’s conduct in fact served the goal of “vigorous and effective advocacy.” Id., at 754. The Court’s reasoning would have been entirely superfluous if there were no right to effective assistance of counsel in the first place. See, e. g., Francois v. Wainwright, 741 F. 2d 1275, 1284-1285 (CA11 1984); Tsirizotakis v. LeFevre, 736 F. 2d 57, 65 (CA2), cert. denied, post, p. 869; Branch v. Cupp, 736 F. 2d 533, 537-538 (CA9 1984); Alvord v. Wainwright, 725 F. 2d 1282, 1291 (CA11), cert. denied, post, p. 956; Cunningham v. Henderson, 725 F. 2d 32 (CA2 1984); Doyle v. United States, 721 F. 2d 1195 (CA9 1983); Gilbert v. Sowders, 646 F. 2d 1146 (CA6 1981) (per curiam) (dismissal of appeal because retained counsel ran afoul of “highly technical procedural rule” violated due process); Perez v. Wainwright, 640 F. 2d 596, 598, n. 3 (CA5 1981) (citing cases), cert. denied, 456 U. S. 910 (1982); Robinson v. Wyrick, 635 F. 2d 757 (CA81981); Cleaver v. Bordenkircher, 634 F. 2d 1010 (CA6 1980), cert. denied sub nom. Sowders v. Cleaver, 451 U. S. 1008 (1981); Miller v. McCarthy, 607 F. 2d 854, 857-858 (CA9 1979); Passmore v. Estelle, 594 F. 2d 115 (CA5 1979), cert. denied, 446 U. S. 937 (1980); Cantrell v. Alabama, Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. The States of Delaware and New Jersey seek this Court’s resolution of a dispute concerning their respective regulatory authority over a portion of the Delaware River within a circle of twelve miles centered on the town of New Castle, Delaware. In an earlier contest between the two States, this Court upheld the title of Delaware to “the river and the subaqueous soil” within the circle “up to [the] low water mark on the easterly or New Jersey side.” New Jersey v. Delaware, 291 U. S. 361, 385 (1934) (New Jersey v. Delaware II) Prior to that 1934 boundary determination, in 1905, the two States had entered into an accord (1905 Compact or Compact), which Congress ratified in 1907. The Compact accommodated both States’ concerns on matters over which the States had crossed swords: service of civil and criminal process on vessels and rights of fishery within the twelve-mile zone. Although the parties were unable to reach agreement on the interstate boundary at that time, the 1905 Compact contained two jurisdictional provisions important to the current dispute: “Art. VII. Each State may, on its own side of the river, continue to exercise riparian jurisdiction of every kind and nature, and to make grants, leases, and conveyances of riparian lands and rights under the laws of the respective States. “Art. VIII. Nothing herein contained shall affect the territorial limits, rights, or jurisdiction of either State of, in, or over the Delaware River, or the ownership of the subaqueous soil thereof, except as herein expressly set forth.” Act of Jan. 24, 1907, 34 Stat. 860. The controversy we here resolve was sparked by Delaware’s refusal to grant permission for construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) unloading terminal that would extend some 2,000 feet from New Jersey’s shore into territory New Jersey v. Delaware II adjudged to belong to Delaware. The LNG plant, storage tanks, and other structures would be maintained onshore in New Jersey. Relying on Article VII of the 1905 Compact, New Jersey urged that it had exclusive jurisdiction over all projects appurtenant to its shores, including wharves extending past the low-water mark on New Jersey’s side into Delaware territory. Delaware asserted regulatory authority, undiminished by Article VII, over structures located within its borders; in support, Delaware invoked, inter alia, Article VIII of the 1905 Compact and our decision in New Jersey v. Delaware II. The Special Master we appointed to superintend the proceedings filed a report recommending a determination that Delaware has authority to regulate the proposed construction, concurrently with New Jersey, to the extent that the project reached beyond New Jersey’s border and extended into Delaware’s domain. We accept the Special Master’s recommendation in principal part. Article VII of the 1905 Compact, we hold, did not secure to New Jersey exclusive jurisdiction over all riparian improvements commencing on its shores. The parties’ own conduct, since the time Delaware has endeavored to regulate coastal development, supports the conclusion to which other relevant factors point: New Jersey and Delaware have overlapping authority to regulate riparian structures and operations of extraordinary character extending outshore of New Jersey’s domain into territory over which Delaware is sovereign. I Disputes between New Jersey and Delaware concerning the boundary along the Delaware River (or River) separating the two States have persisted “almost from the beginning of statehood.” New Jersey v. Delaware II, 291 U. S., at 376. The history of the States’ competing claims of sovereignty, rehearsed at length in New Jersey v. Delaware II, need not be detailed here. In brief, tracing title through a series of deeds originating with a 1682 grant from the Duke of York to William Penn, Delaware asserted dominion, within the twelve-mile circle, over the River and its subaqueous lands up to the low-water mark on the New Jersey side. Id., at 364, 374. New Jersey claimed sovereign ownership up to the middle of the navigable channel. Id., at 363-364. The instant proceeding is the third original action New Jersey has commenced against Delaware involving the Delaware River boundary between the two States. The first action, New Jersey v. Delaware, No. 1, Orig. (filed 1877) (New Jersey v. Delaware I), was propelled by the States’ disagreements over fishing rights. See Report of Special Master 3 (Report). That case “slumbered for many years.” New Jersey v. Delaware II, 291 U. S., at 377. Eventually, the parties negotiated a Compact, which both States approved in 1905, and Congress ratified in 1907. See Act of Jan. 24,1907, ch. 394, 34 Stat. 858. Modest in comparison to the parties’ initial aim, the Compact left location of the interstate boundary an unsettled question. New Jersey then withdrew its complaint and this Court dismissed the case without prejudice. New Jersey v. Delaware I, 205 U. S. 550 (1907). The second original action, New Jersey v. Delaware II, was fueled by a dispute over ownership of an oyster bed in the River below the twelve-mile circle. See Report 14. In response to New Jersey’s complaint, the Court conclusively settled the boundary between the States. Confirming the Special Master’s report, the Court held that, within the twelve-mile circle, Delaware owns the River and the sub-aqueous soil up to the low-water mark on the New Jersey side. 291 U. S., at 385. But New Jersey gained the disputed oyster bed: South of the circle, the Court adjudged the boundary “to be the middle of the main ship channel in Delaware River and Bay.” Ibid. See also New Jersey v. Delaware II, 295 U. S. 694, 699 (1935) (Decree) (perpetually enjoining the States from further disputing the boundary). In upholding Delaware’s title to the area within the twelve-mile circle, the Court rejected an argument pressed by New Jersey based on the 1905 Compact: By agreeing to the Compact, New Jersey urged, Delaware had abandoned any claim of ownership beyond the middle of the River. The Court found New Jersey’s argument “wholly without force.” 291 U. S., at 377. “The compact of 1905,” the Court declared, “provides for the enjoyment of riparian rights, for concurrent jurisdiction in respect of civil and criminal process, and for concurrent rights of fishery. Beyond that it does not go.” Id., at 377-378. The Court next recited in full the text of Article VIII of the Compact: “Nothing herein contained shall affect the territorial limits, rights, or jurisdiction of either State of, in, or over the Delaware River, or the ownership of the subaqueous soil thereof, except as herein expressly set forth.” Id., at 378 (internal quotation marks omitted). II The current controversy arose out of the planned construction of facilities to import, store, and vaporize foreign-source LNG; the proposed project would be operated by Crown Landing, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of British Petroleum (BP). See Report 19; 6 App. of Delaware on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment 3793, 3804-3807 (hereinafter Del. App.) (Request for Coastal Zone Status Decision). The “Crown Landing” project would include a gasification plant, storage tanks, and other structures onshore in New Jersey, and a pier and related structures extending some 2,000 feet from New Jersey’s shore into Delaware. Report 19-20; 6 Del. App. 3804. Supertankers with capacities of up to 200,000 cubic meters (more than 40 percent larger than any ship then carrying natural gas) would berth at the pier. Id., at 3810. A multipart transfer system — including, inter alia, cryogenic piping, a containment trough, and utility lines — would be installed on the 6,000-square-foot unloading platform and along the pier to transport the LNG (at sufficiently cold temperatures to keep it in a liquid state) from ships to three 158,000-cubic-meter storage tanks onshore; vapor byproducts resulting from the onshore gasification would be returned to the tankers. Report 19-20; 6 Del. App. 3804; 7 id., at 4307 (Cherry Affidavit). Even “[djuring the holding mode of terminal operation (when no ship is unloading),” LNG would circulate through the piping along the pier to “keep the line cold.” 6 id., at 3804. Construction of the Crown Landing project would require dredging 1.24 million cubic yards of subaqueous soil, affecting approximately 29 acres of the riverbed within Delaware’s territory. Report 19-20. In September 2004, BP sought permission from Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) to construct the Crown Landing unloading terminal. See id., at 20. DNREC refused permission some months later on the ground that the terminal was barred by Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act (DCZA), Del. Code Ann., Tit. 7, § 7001 et seq. (2001), as a prohibited “offshore... bulk product transfer facility] ” as well as a prohibited “[hjeavy industry us[e],” § 7003; Report 20. Reactions to DNREC’s decision boiled over on both sides. New Jersey threatened to withdraw state pension funds from Delaware banks, and Delaware considered authorizing the National Guard to protect its border from encroachment. See Report 21. One New Jersey legislator looked into recommissioning the museum-piece battleship U. S. S. New Jersey, in the event that the vessel might be needed to repel an armed invasion by Delaware. See ibid. New Jersey commenced the instant action in 2005, seeking a declaration that Article VII of the 1905 Compact establishes its exclusive jurisdiction “to regulate the construction of improvements appurtenant to the New Jersey shore of the Delaware River within the Twelve-Mile Circle, free of regulation by Delaware.” Motion to Reopen and for Supplemental Decree 35; see Report 22, 29. We granted leave to file a bill of complaint. 546 U. S. 1028 (2005). Delaware opposed New Jersey’s reading of Article VII, and maintained that the 1905 Compact did not give New Jersey exclusive authority to “approve projects that encroach on Delaware submerged lands without any say by Delaware.” Brief for Delaware in Opposition to New Jersey’s Motion to Reopen and for Supplemental Decree 21; see Report 23, 29. The Special Master appointed by the Court, Ralph I. Lancaster, Jr., 546 U. S. 1147 (2006), superintended discovery and carefully considered nearly 6,500 pages of materials presented by the parties in support of cross-motions for summary judgment. Report 27. He ultimately determined that the “riparian jurisdiction” preserved to New Jersey by Article VII of the 1905 Compact “is not exclusive” and that Delaware “has overlapping jurisdiction to regulate... improvements outshore of the low water mark on the New Jersey side of the River.” Id., at 32. New Jersey filed exceptions to which we now turn. III At the outset, we summarize our decision and the principal reasons for it. In accord with the Special Master, we hold that Article VII of the 1905 Compact does not grant New Jersey exclusive jurisdiction over all riparian improvements extending outshore of the low-water mark. First, the novel term “riparian jurisdiction,” which the parties employed in the Compact, is properly read as a limiting modifier and not as synonymous with “exclusive jurisdiction.” Second, an 1834 compact between New Jersey and New York casts informative light on the later New Jersey-Delaware accord. Third, our decision in Virginia v. Maryland, 540 U. S. 56 (2003), provides scant support for New Jersey’s claim. We there held that a Maryland-Virginia boundary settlement gave Virginia “sovereign authority, free from regulation by Maryland, to build improvements appurtenant to [Virginia’s] shore and to withdraw water from the [Potomac] River.” Id., at 75. Delaware’s 1905 agreement to New Jersey’s exercise of “riparian jurisdiction,” made when the boundary was still disputed, cannot plausibly be read as an equivalent recognition of New Jersey’s sovereign authority. Finally, Delaware’s claim to regulating authority is supported by New Jersey’s acceptance (until the present controversy) of Delaware’s jurisdiction over water and land within its domain to preserve the quality and prevent deterioration of the State’s coastal areas. A New Jersey hinges its case on Article VII of the 1905 Compact, which it reads as conferring on “each. State complete regulatory authority over the construction and operation of riparian improvements on its shores, even if the improvements extend past the low-water mark.” Exceptions by New Jersey to Report of Special Master and Supporting Brief 16 (hereinafter New Jersey Exceptions). New Jersey v. Delaware II, New Jersey recognizes, confirmed Delaware’s sovereign ownership of the River and subaqueous soil within the twelve-mile circle. But, New Jersey emphasizes, the Court expressly made that determination “subject to the Compact of 1905.” 291 U. S., at 385. New Jersey acknowledges that Delaware “unquestionably can exercise its police power outshore of the low-water mark.” New Jersey Exceptions 16. New Jersey contends, however, that Delaware cannot do so in a manner that would interfere with the authority over riparian rights that Article VII of the 1905 Compact preserves for New Jersey. Ibid. Because the meaning of the 1905 Compact and, in particular, Article VII, is key to the resolution of this controversy, we focus our attention on that issue. Significantly, Article VII provides that “[e]ach State may, on its own side of the river, continue to exercise” not “exclusive jurisdiction” or “jurisdiction” unmodified, but “riparian jurisdiction of every kind and nature.” 34 Stat. 860. New Jersey argues that “riparian jurisdiction” should be read broadly to encompass full police-power jurisdiction over activities carried out on riparian structures. New Jersey Exceptions 36-37. If New Jersey enjoys full police power over improvements extending from its shore, New Jersey reasons, then necessarily Delaware cannot encroach on that authority. See Report 54. 1 We agree with the Special Master that “ ‘riparian’ is a limiting modifier.” Report 57. Interpreting an interstate compact, “[j]ust as if [we] were addressing a federal statute,” New Jersey v. New York, 523 U. S. 767, 811 (1998), it would be appropriate to construe a compact term in accord with its common-law meaning, see Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 263 (1952). The term “riparian jurisdiction,” however, was not a legal term of art in 1905, nor is it one now. See 7 Del. App. 4279, 4281 (Expert Report of Professor Joseph L. Sax (Nov. 7, 2006)). As the Special Master stated, “riparian jurisdiction” appears to be a verbal formulation “devised by the [1905 Compact] drafters specifically for Article VII.” Report 54. Elsewhere in the Compact, one finds the more familiar terms “jurisdiction” (in the introductory paragraphs and, most notably, in Article VIII) or “exclusive jurisdiction” (in Article IV). To attribute to “riparian jurisdiction” the same meaning as “jurisdiction” unmodified, or to equate the novel term with the distinct formulation “exclusive jurisdiction,” would deny operative effect to each word in the Compact, contrary to basic principles of construction. See United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538-539 (1955). In this regard, Article VIII bears reiteration: “Nothing herein contained shall affect the territorial limits, rights, or jurisdiction of either State of, in, or over the Delaware River, or the ownership of the sub-aqueous soil thereof, except as herein expressly set forth.” 34 Stat. 860. Presumably drafted in recognition of the still-unresolved boundary dispute, see supra, at 603-606, Article VIII requires an express statement in the Compact in order to “affect the territorial... jurisdiction of either State... over the Delaware River.” We resist reading the uncommon term “riparian jurisdiction,” even when aggrandized by the phrase “of every kind and nature,” as tantamount to an express cession by Delaware of its entire “territorial... jurisdiction... over the Delaware River.” 2 Endeavoring to fathom the import of the novel term “riparian jurisdiction,” the Special Master recognized that a riparian landowner ordinarily enjoys the right to build a wharf to access navigable waters far enough to permit the loading and unloading of ships. Report 47-49, 58-59. Accord 1 H. Farnham, Law of Waters and Water Rights § 62, p. 279 (1904) (“The riparian owner is also entitled to have his contact with the water remain intact. This is what is known as the right of access, and includes the right to erect wharves to reach the navigable portion of the stream.”); id., § 111, p. 520 (“A wharf is a structure on the margin of navigable water, alongside of which vessels are brought for the sake of being conveniently loaded or unloaded.”). But the Special Master also recognized that the right of a riparian owner to wharf out is subject to state regulation. Report 58; see 1 Farnham, supra, § 63, p. 284 (rights of riparian owner “are always subordinate to the public rights, and the state may regulate their exercise in the interest of the public”); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 40 (1894) (“[A] riparian proprietor... has the right of access to the navigable part of the stream in front of his land, and to construct a wharf or pier projecting into the stream..., subject to such general rules and regulations as the legislature may prescribe for the protection of the public....” (internal quotation marks omitted)). New Jersey took no issue with the Special Master’s recognition that States, in the public interest, may place restrictions on a riparian proprietor’s activities. In its response to Delaware’s request for admissions, New Jersey readily acknowledged that a person wishing to conduct a particular activity on a wharf, in addition to obtaining a riparian grant, would have to comply with all other “applicable New Jersey laws, and local laws.” 6 Del. App. 4147, 4156 (New Jersey’s Responses to Delaware’s First Request for Admissions ¶ 22 (Sept. 8, 2006)). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 856, Comment e, pp. 246-247 (1977) (“[A] state may exercise its police power by controlling the initiation and conduct of riparian and nonriparian uses of water.”). But New Jersey sees itself, to the exclusion of Delaware, as the State empowered to regulate, for the benefit of the public, New Jersey landowners’ exercise of riparian rights. In the ordinary case, the State that grants riparian rights is also the State that has regulatory authority over the exercise of those rights. But cf. Cummings v. Chicago, 188 U. S. 410, 431 (1903) (federal regulation of wharfing out in the Calumet River did not divest local government of regulatory authority based on location of project within that government’s territory). In this regard, the negotiators of the 1905 Compact faced an unusual situation: As long as the boundary issue remained unsettled, they could not know which State was sovereign within the twelve-mile circle beyond New Jersey’s shore. They likely knew, however, that “[i]n a case of wharfing out... ‘[t]he rights of a riparian owner upon a navigable stream in this country are governed by the law of the State in which the stream is situated.’” 1 S. Wiel, Water Rights in the Western States § 898, p. 934 (3d ed. 1911) (quoting Weems Steamboat Co. of Baltimore v. People’s Steamboat Co., 214 U. S. 345, 355 (1909)). With the issue of sovereignty reserved by the 1905 Compact drafters for another day, the Special Master’s conclusion that Article VII’s reference to “riparian jurisdiction” did not mean “exclusive jurisdiction” is difficult to gainsay. The Special Master pertinently observed that, as New Jersey read the 1905 Compact, Delaware had given up all governing authority over the disputed area while receiving nothing in return. He found New Jersey’s position “implausible.” Report 63. “Delaware,” the Special Master stated, “would not have willingly ceded all jurisdiction over matters taking place on land that [Delaware adamantly] contended it owned exclusively and outright.” Id., at 64. New Jersey asserts that Delaware did just that, as shown by representations made during proceedings in New Jersey v. Delaware II. New Jersey Exceptions 44. Delaware’s reply brief before the Special Master in that case stated: “Article VII of the Compact is obviously merely a recognition of the rights of the riparian owners of New Jersey and a cession to the State of New Jersey by the State of Delaware of jurisdiction to regulate those rights.” 1 App. of New Jersey on Motion for Summary Judgment 123a. Further, at oral argument before the Special Master in that earlier fray, Delaware’s counsel said that, in his view, the 1905 Compact “ceded to the State of New Jersey all the right to control the erection of [wharves extending into the Delaware River from New Jersey’s shore] and to say who shall erect them.” Id., at 126a-l. The Special Master in the instant case found New Jersey’s position dubious, as do we. The representations Delaware made in the course of New Jersey v. Delaware II, the Special Master here observed, were “fully consistent with [the Master’s] interpretation of Article VII [of the 1905 Compact].” Report 89. New Jersey did indeed preserve “the right to exercise its own jurisdiction over riparian improvements appurtenant to its shore.” Ibid. But, critically, Delaware nowhere “suggested that New Jersey would have the exclusive authority to regulate all aspects of riparian improvements, even if on Delaware’s land.” Ibid. Delaware, in its argument before the Special Master, was equally uncompromising. As a result of the 1934 boundary determination, Delaware urged, “the entire River is on Delaware’s ‘own side,’ and New Jersey consequently ha[d] no ‘side’ of the River on which to exercise any riparian rights or riparian jurisdiction.” Id., at 36. Article VII of the 1905 Compact, according to Delaware, was a “temporary” measure, “entirely... contingent on the ultimate resolution of the boundary.” Id., at 39. That reading, the Special Master demonstrated, was altogether fallacious. Id., at 36-40. Seeking to harmonize Article VII with the boundary determination, the Special Master reached these conclusions. First, the 1905 Compact gave New Jersey no authority to grant lands owned by Delaware. Id., at 45-46. Second, Article VII’s preservation to each State of “riparian jurisdiction” means that New Jersey may control the riparian rights ordinarily and usually enjoyed by landowners on New Jersey’s shore. For example, New Jersey may define “how far a riparian owner can wharf out, the quantities of water that a riparian owner can draw from the River, and the like.” Id., at 57-58. Nevertheless, New Jersey’s regulatory authority is qualified once the boundary line at low water is passed. Id., at 58. Just as New Jersey cannot grant land belonging to Delaware, so New Jersey cannot authorize activities that go beyond the exercise of ordinary and usual riparian rights in the face of contrary regulation by Delaware. B Interstate compacts, like treaties, are presumed to be “the subject of careful consideration before they are entered into, and are drawn by persons competent to express their meaning and to choose apt words in which to embody the purposes of the high contracting parties.” Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U. S. 317, 332 (1912). Accordingly, the Special Master found informative a comparison of language in the 1905 Compact with language contained in an 1834 compact between New Jersey and New York. See Report 65. That compact established the two States’ common boundary along the Hudson River. Act of June 28, 1834, ch. 126, 4 Stat. 708. Similar to the boundary between New Jersey and Delaware settled in 1934 in New Jersey v. Delaware II, the 1834 accord located the New Jersey-New York boundary at “the low water-mark on the westerly or New Jersey side [of the Hudson River].” Art. Third, 4 Stat. 710; cf. supra, at 602. The 1834 agreement, however, expressly gave to New Jersey “the exclusive right of property in and to thé land under water lying west of the middle of the bay of New York, and west of the middle of that part of the Hudson river which lies between Manhattan island and New Jersey” and “the exclusive jurisdiction of and over the wharves, docks, and improvements, made and to be made on the shore of the said state...” Art. Third, ¶¶ 1, 2, 4 Stat. 710 (emphasis added). “Comparable language [conferring exclusive authority],” the Special Master observed, “is noticeably absent in the [1905] Compact.” Report 66. The Master found this disparity “conspicuous,” id., at 68, for “[s]everal provisions in the two interstate compacts [contain] strikingly similar language,” id., at 66; see id., App. J (Table Comparing Similar Provisions in the New Jersey-New York Compact of 1834 and the New Jersey-Delaware Compact of 1905). Given that provisions of the 1905 Compact appear to have been adopted almost verbatim from New Jersey’s 1834 accord with New York, see ibid., New Jersey could hardly claim ignorance that Article VII could have been drafted to grant New Jersey “exclusive jurisdiction” (not merely “riparian jurisdiction”) over wharves and other improvements extending from its shore into navigable Delaware River waters, id., at 67. C New Jersey urged before the Special Master, and in its exceptions to his report, that Virginia v. Maryland, 540 U. S. 56, is dispositive of this case. Both cases involved an interstate compact, which left the boundary between the contending States unresolved, and a later determination settling the boundary. And both original actions were referred to Ralph I. Lancaster, Jr., as Special Master. We find persuasive the Special Master’s reconciliation of his recommendations in the two actions. See Report 64-65, n. 118. Virginia v. Maryland involved a 1785 compact and an 1877 arbitration award. Agreeing with the Special Master, we held that the arbitration award permitted Virginia to construct a water intake structure extending into the Potomac River, even though the award placed Virginia’s boundary at the low-water mark on its own side of the Potomac. See 540 U. S., at 75. “Superficially,” the Special Master said, “that holding would appear to support New Jersey’s argument here, i. e., that construction of wharves off New Jersey’s shore should not be subject to regulation by Delaware.” Report 64, n. 118. But, the Special Master explained, the result in Virginia v. Maryland turned on “the unique language of the compact and arbitration award involved in that case.” Report 64, n. 118. The key provision of the 1785 compact between Maryland and Virginia, we observed, addressed only “the right [of the citizens of each State] to build wharves and improvements regardless of which State ultimately was determined to be sovereign over the River.” 540 U. S., at 69. Concerning the rights of the States, the 1877 arbitration award, not the 1785 compact, was definitive. See id., at 75. The key provision of that award recognized the right of Virginia, “qua sovereign,” “to use the River beyond low-water mark,” a right “nowhere made subject to Maryland’s regulatory authority.” Id., at 72. Confirming the “sovereign character” of Virginia’s right, we noted, Maryland had proposed to the arbitrators that the boundary line between the States be drawn around “all wharves and other improvements now extending or which may hereafter be extended, by authority of Virginia from the Virginia shore into the [Potomac] beyond low water mark.” Id., at 72, n. 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the formulation Maryland proposed was not used in the arbitration award, the arbitrators plainly manifested their intention to accomplish the same end: to safeguard “Virginia’s authority to construct riparian improvements outshore of the low water mark without regulation by Maryland.” Report 65, n. 118; see Virginia v. Maryland, 540 U. S., at 73, n. 7. By contrast, in the instant case, neither the 1905 Compact, nor New Jersey v. Delaware II, the 1934 decision settling the boundary dispute, purported to give New Jersey “all regulatory oversight (as opposed to merely riparian oversight)” or to endow New Jersey with authority “exclusive of jurisdiction by Delaware.” Report 65, n. 118; see supra, at 610-615. D We turn, finally, to the parties’ prior course of conduct, on which the Special Master placed considerable weight. See Report 68-84; cf. O’Connor v. United States, 479 U. S. 27, 33 (1986) (“The course of conduct of parties to an international agreement, like the course of conduct of parties to any contract, is evidence of its meaning.”). Until the 1960’s, wharfing out from the New Jersey shore into Delaware territory was not a matter of controversy between the two States. From 1851, when New Jersey began issuing grants for such activity, through 1969, only 11 constructions straddled the interstate boundary. Report 74. At the time of the 1905 Compact and continuing into the 1950’s, Delaware, unlike New Jersey, issued no grants or leases for its subaqueous lands. Delaware regulated riparian improvements solely under its common law, which limited developments only to the extent they constituted public nuisances. Id., at 69. In 1961, Delaware enacted its first statute regulating submerged lands, and in 1966, it enacted broader legislation governing leases of state-owned subaqueous lands. Id., at 70. The State grandfathered piers and wharves built prior to the effective date of the regulations implementing the 1966 statute. Id., at 70-71. Permits were required, however, for modifications to the grandfathered structures and for new structures. Id., at 71. Then, in 1971, Delaware enacted the DCZA to prevent “a significant danger of pollution to the coastal zone.” Del. Code Ann., Tit. 7, §7001. The DCZA prohibits within the coastal zone “[h]eavy industry uses of any kind” and “offshore gas, liquid or solid bulk product transfer facilities.” §7003. In 1972, Delaware rejected as a prohibited bulk transfer facility El Paso Eastern Company’s request to build an LNG unloading facility extending from New Jersey into Delaware. 5 Del. App. 3483 (Letter from David Keifer, Director of Delaware State Planning Office, to Barry Hunt-singer, El Paso Eastern Company (Feb. 23, 1972)). Shortly before denying El Paso’s application, Delaware notified New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), which raised no objection to Delaware’s refusal to permit the LNG terminal. Delaware similarly relied on the DCZA to deny permits for construction of the Crown Landing unloading facility at issue in this case. Report 20. Also in 1972, Congress enacted the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, 86 Stat. 1280, 16 U. S. C. § 1451 et seq., which required States to submit their coastal management programs to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval. In return, States with approved programs would receive federal funding for coastal management. See §§ 1454-1455. Delaware’s coastal management program, approved by the Secretary in 1979, specifically addressed LNG facilities and reported that “ ‘no site in Delaware [is] suitable for the location of any LNG import-export facility.’” Report 72 (quoting 4 Del. App. 2591 (Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. (NOAA), Delaware Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement 57 (Mar. 1980))). The next year, 1980, New Jersey gained approval for its coastal management program. The Special Master found telling, as do we, a representation New Jersey made in its submission to the Secretary: “The New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Management agencies... have concluded that any New Jersey project extending beyond mean low water must obtain coastal permits from both states. New Jersey and Delaware, therefore, will coordinate reviews of any proposed development that would span the interstate boundary to ensure that no development is constructed unless it would be consistent with both state coastal management programs.” Report 81 (quoting 4 Del. App. 2657 (NOAA, N. J. Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement 20 (Aug. 1980)); emphasis added). See also Report 72-73. That representation, the Special Master observed, “is fundamentally inconsistent with the position advanced by New Jersey here, i. e., that only New Jersey has the right to regulate such projects.” Id., at 73. As the Special Master reported, just three structures extending from New Jersey into Delaware were built between 1969 and 2006. Delaware’s DNREC issued permits for each of them. Id., at 74-76. One of those projects was undertaken by New Jersey itself. The State, in 1996, sought to refurbish a stone pier at New Jersey’s Fort Mott State Park. Id., at 75-76. New Jersey issued a waterfront development permit for the project, but that permit approved structures only to the low-water mark. Delaware’s approval was sought and obtained for structures outshore of that point. Even during the pendency of this action, New Jersey applied to Delaware for renewal of the permit covering the portion of the Fort Mott project extending into Delaware. Ibid. IV New Jersey v. Delaware II upheld Delaware’s ownership of the River and subaqueous soil within the twelve-mile circle. The 1905 Compact did not ordain that this Court’s 1934 settlement of the boundary would be an academic exercise with slim practical significance. Tending against a reading that would give New Jersey exclusive authority, Article VIII of the Compact, as earlier emphasized, see supra, at 611, states: “Nothing herein contained shall affect the territorial limits, rights or jurisdiction of either State of, in or over the Delaware River, or the ownership of the subaqueous soil thereof, except as herein expressly set forth.” Nowhere does Article VII “expressly set forth” Delaware’s lack of any governing authority over territory within the State’s own borders. Cf. Report 43-46. The Special Master correctly Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

K

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Certiorari, 348 U. S. 854, to the Supreme Court of Kansas. Per Curiam: The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court in In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner sued prison officials seeking damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for injuries he suffered when they negligently failed to protect him from another inmate. On December 19, 1980, petitioner was threatened by one McMillian, a fellow inmate at the New Jersey State Prison at Leesburg. Petitioner sent a note reporting the incident that found its way to respondent Cannon, the Assistant Superintendent of the prison, who read the note and sent it on to respondent James, a Corrections Sergeant. Cannon subsequently testified that he did not view the situation as urgent because on previous occasions when petitioner had a serious problem he had contacted Cannon directly. James received the note at about 2 p.m. on December 19, and was informed of its contents. James then attended to other matters, which he described as emergencies, and left the note on his desk unread. By the time he left the prison that evening James had forgotten about the note, and since neither he nor Cannon worked on December 20 or 21, the officers on duty at that time had not been informed of the threat. Petitioner took no steps other than writing the note to alert the authorities that he feared an attack, nor did he request protective custody. He testified that he did not foresee an attack, and that he wrote the note to exonerate himself in the event that McMillian started another fight. He also testified that he wanted officials to reprimand McMillian in order to forestall any future incident. On Sunday, December 21, McMillian attacked petitioner with a fork, breaking his nose and inflicting other wounds to his face, neck, head, and body. Petitioner brought this § 1983 suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming that respondents (and two others) had violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. After a bench trial, the District Court held that petitioner had not established an Eighth Amendment violation “because [respondents] did not act with deliberate or callous indifference to [petitioner’s] needs and because the incident complained of was a single attack.” App. 89. The court also found, however, that respondents “negligently failed to take reasonable steps to protect [petitioner], and that he was injured as a result.” Ibid. Petitioner was thereby deprived, see Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527, 536-537 (1981), of his liberty interest in personal security, see Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651, 673 (1977); and because New Jersey law provides that “[n]either a public entity nor a public employee is liable for . . . any injury caused by ... a prisoner to any other prisoner,” N. J. Stat. Ann. § 59:5-2(b)(4) (1982), the court concluded that the deprivation was without due process. Petitioner was awarded compensatory damages of $2,000. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, hearing the case en banc, reversed. 752 F. 2d 817 (1984). While accepting the District Court’s conclusion that respondents had been negligent, and agreeing that the attack on petitioner implicated a recognized liberty interest, the majority held that respondents’ negligence did not work a “deprivation” of that interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. The court conceded that language in Parratt supported .the District Court’s position that merely negligent conduct causing injury could constitute a Fourteenth Amendment “deprivation,” but concluded that “Parratt does not so hold.” 752 F. 2d, at 826. Accordingly, the court ruled that petitioner had failed to make out a violation of his procedural or substantive due process rights, stating that § 1988 provides no remedy “for the type of negligence found in this case.” Id., at 829. Two judges who joined the majority opinion also wrote separately to suggest that even if respondents’ negligence had “deprived” petitioner of liberty, the State’s decision not to provide a remedy, in view of its strong interest in protecting its prison officials from liability, did not violate due process. Three judges dissented, essentially embracing the position of the District Court. We granted certiorari, 471 U. S. 1134 (1985), and set this case for oral argument with Daniels v. Williams, ante, p. 327. Finding the principles enunciated in Daniels controlling here, we affirm. In Daniels, we held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not implicated by the lack of due care of an official causing unintended injury to life, liberty, or property. In other words, where a government official is merely negligent in causing the injury, no procedure for compensation is constitutionally required. In this case, petitioner does not challenge the District Court’s finding that respondents “ ‘did not act with deliberate or callous indifference to [petitioner’s] needs,”’ 752 F. 2d, at 820. Instead, he claims only that respondents “negligently failed to protect him from another inmate.” Brief for Petitioner 2. Daniels therefore controls. Respondents’ lack of due care in this case led to serious injury, but that lack of care simply does not approach the sort of abusive government conduct that the Due Process Clause was designed to prevent. Daniels, ante, at 331-333. Far from abusing governmental power, or employing it as an instrument of oppression, respondent Cannon mistakenly believed that the situation was not particularly serious, and respondent James simply forgot about the note. The guarantee of due process has never been understood to mean that the State must guarantee due care on the part of its officials. In an effort to limit the potentially broad sweep of his claim, petitioner emphasizes that he “does not ask this Court to read the Constitution as an absolute guarantor of his liberty from assault by a fellow prisoner, even if that assault is caused by the negligence of his jailers.” Brief for Petitioner 17. Describing his claim as one of “procedural due process, pure and simple,” id., at 14, all he asks is that New Jersey provide him a remedy. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a remedy when there has been no “deprivation” of a protected interest. Petitioner’s claim, based on respondents’ negligence, is quite different from one involving injuries caused by an unjustified attack by prison guards themselves, see Johnson v. Glick, 481 F. 2d 1028 (CA2), (Friendly, J.), cert. denied sub nom. John v. Johnson, 414 U. S. 1033 (1973), or by another prisoner where officials simply stood by and permitted the attack to proceed, see Curtis v. Everette, 489 F. 2d 516 (CA3 1973), cert. denied sub nom. Smith v. Curtis, 416 U. S. 995 (1974). As we held in Daniels, the protections of the Due Process Clause, whether procedural or substantive, are just not triggered by lack of due care by prison officials. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is affirmed. It is so ordered. [For opinion of Justice Stevens concurring in the judgment, see ante, p. 336]. The note, addressed to a civilian hearing officer, said: “When I went back to the unit after seeing you McMillian was on the steps outside the unit. When I was going past him he told me ‘I’ll fuck you up you old mother-fucking fag.’ Go up to your cell, I be right there. “I ignored this and went to another person’s cell and thought about it. Then I figured I should tell you so ‘if’ anything develops you would be aware. “I’m quite content to let this matter drop but evidently McMillian isn’t. “Thank you, R. Davidson.” 752 F. 2d 817, 819 (CA3 1984). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable' cause to believe it has been violated. I-H The horrible facts of this case are contained in the complaint that respondent Jessica Gonzales filed in Federal District Court. (Because the case comes to us on appeal from a dismissal of the complaint, we assume its allegations are true. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U. S. 506, 508, n. 1 (2002).) Respondent alleges that petitioner, the town of Castle Rock, Colorado, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond properly to her repeated reports that her estranged husband was violating the terms of a restraining order. The restraining order had been issued by a state trial eourt several weeks earlier in conjunction with respondent’s divorce proceedings. The original form order, issued on May 21, 1999, and served on respondent’s husband on June 4,1999, commanded him not to “molest or disturb the peace of [respondent] or of any child,” and to remain at least 100 yards from the family home at all times. 366 F. 3d 1093, 1143 (CA10 2004) (en banc) (appendix to dissenting opinion of O’Brien, J.). The bottom of the preprinted form noted that the reverse side contained “IMPORTANT NOTICES FOR RESTRAINED PARTIES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.” Ibid, (emphasis deleted). The pre-printed text on the back of the form included the following “WARNING”: “A KNOWING VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER IS A CRIME.... A VIOLATION WILL ALSO CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF COURT. YOU MAY BE ARRESTED WITHOUT NOTICE IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THIS ORDER.” Id., at 1144 (emphasis in original). The preprinted text on the back of the form also included a “NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS,” which read in part: “YOU SHALL USE EVERY REASONABLE MEANS TO ENFORCE THIS RESTRAINING ORDER. YOU SHALL ARREST, OR, IF AN ARREST WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SEEK A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF THE RESTRAINED PERSON WHEN YOU HAVE INFORMATION AMOUNTING TO PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS VIOLATED OR ATTEMPTED TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS ORDER AND THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER OR HAS RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ORDER.” Ibid. (same). On June 4,1999, the state trial court modified the terms of the restraining order and made it permanent. • The modified order gave respondent’s husband the right to spend time with his three daughters (ages 10, 9, and 7) on alternate weekends, for two weeks during the summer, and, “‘upon reasonable notice,’” for a midweek dinner visit “‘arranged by the parties’ the modified order also allowed him to visit the home to collect the children for such “parenting time.” Id., at 1097 (majority opinion). According to the complaint, at about 5 or 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 22, 1999, respondent’s husband took the three daughters while they were playing outside the family home. No advance arrangements had been made for him to see the daughters that evening. When respondent noticed the children were missing, she suspected her husband had taken them. At about 7:30 p.m., she called the Castle Rock Police Department, which dispatched two officers. The complaint continues: “When [the officers] arrived..., she showed them a copy of the TRO and requested that it be enforced and the three children be returned to her immediately. [The officers] stated that there was nothing they could do about the TRO and suggested that [respondent] call the Police Department again if the three children did not return home by 10:00 p.m.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 126a. At approximately 8:30 p.m., respondent talked to her husband on his cellular telephone. He told her “he had the three children [at an] amusement park in Denver.” Ibid. She called the police again and asked them to “have someone check for” her husband or his vehicle at the amusement park and “put out an [all points bulletin]” for her husband, but the officer with whom she spoke “refused to do so,” again telling her to “wait until 10:00 p.m. and see if” her husband returned the girls. Id., at 126a-127a. At approximately 10:10 p.m., respondent called the police and said her children were still missing, but she was now told to wait until midnight. She called at midnight and told the dispatcher her children were still missing. She went to her husband’s apartment and, finding nobody there, called the police at 12:10 a.m.; she was told to wait for an officer to arrive. When none came, she went to the police station at 12:50 a.m. and submitted an incident report. The officer who took the report “made no reasonable effort to enforce the TRO or locate the three children. Instead, he went to dinner.” Id., at 127a. At approximately 3:20 a.m., respondent’s husband arrived at the police station and opened fire with a semiautomatic handgun he had purchased earlier that evening. Police shot back, killing him. Inside the cab of his pickup truck, they found the bodies of all three daughters, whom he had already murdered. Ibid. On the basis of the foregoing factual allegations, respondent brought an action under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, claiming that the town violated the Due Process Clause because its police department had “an official policy or custom of failing to respond properly to complaints of restraining order violations” and “tolerate[d] the non-enforcement of restraining orders by its police officers.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 129a. The complaint also alleged that the town’s actions “were taken either willfully, recklessly or with such gross negligence as to indicate wanton disregard and deliberate indifference to” respondent’s civil rights. Ibid. Before answering the complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court granted the motion, concluding that, whether construed as making a substantive due process or procedural due process claim, respondent’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the rejection of a substantive due process claim, but found that respondent had alleged a cognizable procedural due process claim. 307 F. 3d 1258 (CA10 2002). On rehearing en banc, a divided court reached the same disposition, concluding that respondent had a “protected property interest in the enforcement of the terms of her restraining order” and that the town had deprived her of due process because “the police never ‘heard’ nor seriously entertained her request to enforce and protect her interests in the restraining order.” 366 F. 3d, at 1101, 1117. We granted certiorari. 543 U. S. 955 (2004). II The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a State shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. ” Arndt. 14, § 1. In 42 U. S. C. § 1983, Congress has created a federal cause of action for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Respondent claims the benefit of this provision on the ground that she had a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband; and that the town deprived her of this property without due process by having a policy that tolerated nonenforcement of restraining orders. As the Court of Appeals recognized, we left a similar question unanswered in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989), another case with “undeniably tragic” facts: Local child-protection officials had failed to protect a young boy from beatings by his father that left him severely brain damaged. Id., at 191-193. We held that the so-called “substantive” component of the Due Process Clause does not “requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” Id., at 195. We noted, however, that the petitioner had not properly preserved the argument that — and we thus “decline[d] to consider” whether — state “child protection statutes gave [him] an ‘entitlement’ to receive protective services in accordance with the terms of the statute, an entitlement which would enjoy due process protection.” Id., at 195, n. 2. The procedural component of the Due Process Clause does not protect everything that might be described as a “benefit”: “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire” and “more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577 (1972). Such entitlements are, “‘of course,... not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.’” Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 709 (1976) (quoting Roth, supra, at 577); see also Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 164 (1998). A Our cases recognize that a benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion. See, e. g., Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U. S. 454, 462-463 (1989). The Court of Appeals in this case determined that Colorado law created an entitlement to enforcement of the restraining order because the “court-issued restraining order... specifically dictated that its terms must be enforced” and a “state statute command[ed]” enforcement of the order when certain objective conditions were met (probable cause to believe that the order had been violated and that the object of the order had received notice of its existence). 366 F. 3d, at 1101, n. 5; see also id., at 1100, n. 4; id., at 1104-1105, and n. 9. Respondent contends that we are obliged “to give deference to the Tenth Circuit’s analysis of Colorado law on” whether she had an entitlement to enforcement of the restraining order. Tr. of Oral Arg. 52. We will not, of course, defer to the Tenth Circuit on the ultimate issue: whether what Colorado law has given respondent constitutes a property interest for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. That determination, despite its state-law underpinnings, is ultimately one of federal constitutional law. “Although the underlying substantive interest is created by ‘an independent source such as state law,’ federal constitutional law determines whether that interest rises to the level of a ‘legitimate claim of entitlement’ protected by the Due Process Clause.” Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U. S. 1, 9 (1978) (quoting Roth, supra, at 577; emphasis added); cf. United States ex rel. TVA v. Powelson, 319 U. S. 266, 279 (1943). Resolution of the federal issue begins, however, with a determination of what it is that state law provides. In the context of the present case, the central state-law question is whether Colorado law gave respondent a right to police enforcement of the restraining order. It is on this point that respondent’s call for deference to the Tenth Circuit is relevant. We have said that a “presumption of deference [is] given the views of a federal court as to the law of a State within its jurisdiction.” Phillips, supra, at 167. That presumption can be overcome, however, see Leavitt v. Jane L., 518 U. S. 137, 145 (1996) (per curiam), and we think deference inappropriate here. The Tenth Circuit’s opinion, which reversed the Colorado District Judge, did not draw upon a deep well of state-specific expertise, but consisted primarily of quoting language from the restraining order, the statutory text, and a state-legislative-hearing transcript. See 366 F. 3d, at 1103-1109. These texts, moreover, say nothing distinctive to Colorado, but use mandatory language that (as we shall discuss) appears in many state and federal statutes. As for case law: The only state-law cases about restraining orders that the Court of Appeals relied upon were decisions of Federal District Courts in Ohio and Pennsylvania and state courts in New Jersey, Oregon, and Tennessee. Id., at 1104-1105, n. 9, 1109. Moreover, if we were simply to accept the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, we would necessarily have to decide conclusively a federal constitutional question (i. e., whether such an entitlement constituted property under the Due Process Clause and, if so, whether petitioner’s customs or policies provided too little process to protect it). We proceed, then, to our own analysis of whether Colorado law gave respondent a right to enforcement of the restraining order. B The critical language in the restraining order came not from any part of the order itself (which was signed by the state-court trial judge and directed to the restrained party, respondent’s husband), but from the preprinted notice to law-enforcement personnel that appeared on the back of the order. See supra, at 751-752. That notice effectively restated the statutory provision describing “peace officers’ duties” related to the crime of violation of a restraining order. At the time of the conduct at issue in this case, that provision read as follows: “(a) Whenever a restraining order is issued, the protected person shall be provided with a copy of such order. A peace officer shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order. “(b) A peace officer shall arrest, or, if an arrest would be impractical under the circumstances, seek a warrant for the arrest of a restrained person when the peace officer has information amounting to probable cause that: “(I) The restrained person has violated or attempted to violate any provision of a restraining order; and “(II) The restrained person has been properly served with a copy of the restraining order or the restrained person has received actual notice of the existence and substance of such order. “(c) In making the probable cause determination described in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), a peace officer shall assume that the information received from the registry is accurate. A peace officer shall enforce a valid restraining order whether or not there is a record of the restraining order in the registry.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-803.5(3) (Lexis 1999) (emphases added). The Court of Appeals concluded that this statutory provision — especially taken in conjunction with a statement from its legislative history, and with another statute restricting criminal and civil liability for officers making arrests — established the Colorado Legislature’s clear intent “to alter the fact that the police were not enforcing domestic abuse restraining orders,” and thus its intent “that the recipient of a domestic abuse restraining order have an entitlement to its enforcement.” 366 F. 3d, at 1108. Any other result, it said, “would render domestic abuse restraining orders utterly valueless.” Id., at 1109. This last statement is sheer hyperbole. Whether or not respondent had a right to enforce the restraining order, it rendered certain otherwise lawful conduct by her husband both criminal and in contempt of court. See § § 18 — 6— 803.5(2)(a), (7). The creation of grounds on which he could be arrested, criminally prosecuted, and held in contempt was hardly “valueless” — even if the prospect of those sanctions ultimately failed to prevent him from committing three murders and a suicide. We do not believe that these provisions of Colorado law truly made enforcement of restraining orders mandatory. A well established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes. “In each and every state there are long-standing statutes that, by their terms, seem to preclude nonenforcement by the police.... However, for a number of reasons, including their legislative history, insufficient resources, and sheer physical impossibility, it has been recognized that such statutes cannot be interpreted literally.... [T]hey clearly do not mean that a police officer may not lawfully decline to... make an arrest. As to third parties in these states, the full-enforcement statutes simply have no effect, and their significance is further diminished.” 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 1-4.5, commentary, pp. 1-124 to 1-125 (2d ed. 1980) (footnotes omitted). The deep-rooted nature of law-enforcement discretion, even in the presence of seemingly mandatory legislative commands, is illustrated by Chicago v. Morales, 527 U. S. 41 (1999), which involved an ordinance that said a police officer “ ‘shall order’ ” persons to disperse in certain circumstances, id., at 47, n. 2. This Court rejected out of hand the possibility that “the mandatory language of the ordinance... afforded] the police no discretion.” Id., at 62, n. 32. It is, the Court proclaimed, simply “common sense that all police officers must use some discretion in deciding when and where to enforce city ordinances.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Against that backdrop, a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication from the Colorado Legislature than “shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order” (or even “shall arrest... or... seek a warrant”), §§ 18-6-803.5(3)(a), (b). That language is not perceptibly more mandatory than the Colorado statute which has long told municipal chiefs of police that they “shall pursue and arrest any person fleeing from justice in any part of the state” and that they “shall apprehend any person in the act of committing any offense... and, forthwith and without any warrant, bring such person before a... competent authority for examination and trial.” Colo. Rev. Stat. §31-4-112 (Lexis 2004). It is hard to imagine that a Colorado peace officer would not have some discretion to determine that — despite probable cause to believe a restraining order has been violated — the circumstances of the violation or the competing duties of that officer or his agency counsel decisively against enforcement in a particular instance. The practical necessity for discretion is particularly apparent in a case such as this one, where the suspected violator is not actually present and his whereabouts are unknown. Cf. Donaldson v. Seattle, 65 Wash. App. 661, 671-672, 831 P. 2d 1098, 1104 (1992) (“There is a vast difference' between a mandatory duty to arrest [a violator who is on the scene] and a mandatory duty to conduct a follow up investigation [to locate an absent violator].... A mandatory duty to investigate... would be completely open-ended as to priority, duration and intensity”). The dissent correctly points out that, in the specific context of domestic violence, mandatory-arrest statutes have been found in some States to be more mandatory than traditional mandatory-arrest statutes. Post, at 779-784 (opinion of Stevens, J.). The Colorado statute mandating arrest for a domestic-violence offense is different from but related to the one at issue here, and it includes similar though not identical phrasing. See Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-6-803.6(1) (Lexis 1999) (“When a peace officer determines that there is probable cause to believe that a crime or offense involving domestic violence... has been committed, the officer shall, without undue delay, arrest the person suspected of its commission... ”). Even in the domestic-violence context, however, it is unclear how the mandatory-arrest paradigm applies to cases in which the offender is not present to be arrested. As the dissent explains, post, at 780-781, and n. 8, much of the impetus for mandatory-arrest statutes and policies derived from the idea that it is better for police officers to arrest the aggressor in a domestic-violence incident than to attempt to mediate the dispute or merely to ask the offender to leave the scene. Those other options are only available, of course, when the offender is present at the scene. See Hanna, No Right to Choose: Mandated Victim Participation in Domestic Violence Prosecutions, 109 Harv. L. Rev. 1849, 1860 (1996) (“[T]he clear trend in police practice is to arrest the batterer at the scene...” (emphasis added)). As one of the cases cited by the dissent, post, at 783, recognized, “there will be situations when no arrest is possible, such as when the alleged abuser is not in the home.” Donaldson, 65 Wash. App., at 674, 831 P. 2d, at 1105 (emphasis added). That case held that Washington’s mandatory-arrest statute required an arrest only in “cases where the offender is on the scene,” and that it “d[id] not create an on-going mandatory duty to conduct an investigation” to locate the offender. Id., at 675, 831 P. 2d, at 1105. Colorado’s restraining-order statute appears to contemplate a similar distinction, providing that when arrest is “impractical” — which was likely the case when the whereabouts of respondent’s husband were unknown — the officers’ statutory duty is to “seek a warrant” rather than “arrest.” § 18-6-803.5(3)(b). Respondent does not specify the precise means of enforcement that the Colorado restraining-order statute assertedly mandated — whether her interest lay in having police arrest her husband, having them seek a warrant for his arrest, or having them “use every reasonable means, up to and including arrest, to enforce the order’s terms,” Brief for Respondent 29-30. Such indeterminacy is not the hallmark of a duty that is mandatory. Nor can someone be safely deemed “entitled” to something when the identity of the alleged entitlement is vague. See Roth, 408 U. S., at 577 (considering whether “certain benefits” were “secure[d]” by rule or understandings); cf. Natale v. Ridgefield, 170 F. 3d 258, 263 (CA2 1999) (“There is no reason... to restrict the ‘uncertainty’ that will preclude existence of a federally protectable property interest to the uncertainty that inheres in [the] exercise of discretion”). The dissent, after suggesting various formulations of the entitlement in question, ultimately contends that the obligations under the statute were quite precise: either make an arrest or (if that is impractical) seek an arrest warrant, post, at 785. The problem with this is that the seeking of an arrest warrant would be an entitlement to nothing but procedure — which we have held inadequate even to support standing, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555 (1992); much less can it be the basis for a property interest. See post, at 771-772 (Souter, J., concurring). After the warrant is sought, it remains within the discretion of a judge whether to grant it, and after it is granted, it remains within the discretion of the police whether and when to execute it. Respondent would have been assured nothing but the seeking of a warrant. This is not the sort of “entitlement” out of which a property interest is created. Even if the statute could be said to have made enforcement of restraining orders “mandatory” because of the domestic-violence context of the underlying statute, that would not necessarily mean that state law gave respondent an entitlement to enforcement of the mandate. Making the actions of government employees obligatory can serve various legitimate ends other than the conferral of a benefit on a specific class of people. See, e. g., Sandin v. Conner, 515 U. S. 472, 482 (1995) (finding no constitutionally protected liberty interest in prison regulations phrased in mandatory terms, in part because “[s]uch guidelines are not set forth solely to benefit the prisoner”). The serving of public rather than private ends is the normal course of the criminal law because criminal acts, “besides the injury [they do] to individuals,... strike at the very being of society; which cannot possibly subsist, where actions of this sort are suffered to escape with impunity.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 5 (1769); see also Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 668 (1892). This principle underlies, for example, a Colorado district attorney’s discretion to prosecute a domestic assault, even though the victim withdraws her charge. See People v. Cunefare, 102 P. 3d 302, 311-312 (Colo. 2004) (en banc) (Bender, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, and dissenting in part to the judgment). Respondent’s alleged interest stems only from a State’s statutory scheme — from a restraining order that was authorized by and tracked precisely the statute on which the Court of Appeals relied. She does not assert that she has any common-law or contractual entitlement to enforcement. If she was given a statutory entitlement, we would expect to see some indication of that in the statute itself. Although Colorado’s statute spoke of “protected person[s]” such as respondent, it did so in connection with matters other than a right to enforcement. It said that a “protected person shall be provided with a copy of [a restraining] order” when it is issued, § 18-6-803.5(3)(a); that a law enforcement agency “shall make all reasonable efforts to contact the protected party upon the arrest of the restrained person,” § 18 — 6— 803.5(3)(d); and that the agency “shalLgive [to the protected person] a copy” of the report it submits to the court that issued the order, § 18-6-803.5(3)(e). Perhaps most importantly, the statute spoke directly to the protected person’s power to “initiate contempt proceedings against the restrained person if the order [was] issued in a civil action or request the prosecuting attorney to initiate contempt proceedings if the order [was] issued in a criminal action.” §18-6-803.5(7). The protected person’s express power to “initiate” civil contempt proceedings contrasts tellingly with the mere ability to “request” initiation of criminal contempt proceedings — and even more dramatically with the complete silence about any power to “request” (much less demand) that an arrest be made. The creation of a personal entitlement to something as vague and novel as enforcement of restraining orders cannot “simply g[o] without saying.” Post, at 788, n. 16 (Stevens, J., dissenting). We conclude that Colorado has not created such an entitlement. C Even if we were to think otherwise concerning the creation of an entitlement by Colorado, it is by no means clear that an individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order could constitute a “property” interest for purposes of the Due Process Clause. Such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property. Although that alone does not disqualify it from due process protection, as Roth and its progeny show, the right to have a restraining order enforced does not “have some ascertainable monetary value,” as even our “Roth-type property-as-entitlement” cases have implicitly required. Merrill, The Landscape of Constitutional Property, 86 Va. L. Rev. 885, 964 (2000). Perhaps most radically, the alleged property interest here arises incidentally, not out of some new species of government benefit or service, but out of a function that government actors have always performed — to wit, arresting people who they have probable cause to believe have committed a criminal offense. The indirect nature of a benefit was fatal to the due process claim of the nursing-home residents in O’Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U. S. 773 (1980). We held that, while the withdrawal of “direct benefits” (financial payments under Medicaid for certain medical services) triggered due process protections, id., at 786-787, the same was not true for the “indirect benefits] ” conferred on Medicaid patients when the Government enforced “minimum standards of care” for nursing-home facilities, id., at 787. “[A]n indirect and incidental result of the Government’s enforcement action... does not amount to a deprivation of any interest in life, liberty, or property.” Ibid. In this ease, as in O’Bannon, “[t]he simple distinction between government action that directly affects a citizen’s legal rights... and action that is directed against a third party and affects the citizen only indirectly or incidentally, provides a sufficient answer to” respondent’s reliance on cases that found government-provided services to be entitlements. Id., at 788. The O’Bannon Court expressly noted, ibid., that the distinction between direct and indirect benefits distinguished Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U. S. 1 (1978), one of the government-services eases on which the dissent relies, post, at 789. III We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. It is accordingly unnecessary to address the Court of Appeals’ determination (366 F. 3d, at 1110-1117) that the town’s custom or policy prevented the police from giving her due process when they deprived her of that alleged interest. See American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U. S. 40, 61 (1999). In light of today’s decision and that in DeShaney, the benefit that a third party may receive from having someone else arrested for a crime generally does not trigger protections under the Due Process Clause, neither in its procedural nor in its “substantive” manifestations. This result reflects our continuing reluctance to treat the Fourteenth Amendment as “‘a font of tort law,’ ” Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527, 544 (1981) (quoting Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S., at 701), but it does not mean States are powerless to provide victims with personally enforceable remedies. Although the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (the original source of § 1983), did not create a system by which police departments are generally held financially accountable for crimes that better policing might have prevented, the people of Colorado are free to craft such a system under state law. Cf. DeShaney, 489 U. S., at 203. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed. Petitioner claims that respondent’s complaint “did not allege... that she ever notified the police of her contention that [her husband] was actually in violation of the restraining order.” Brief for Petitioner 7, n. 2. The complaint does allege, however, that respondent “showed [the police] a copy of the [temporary restraining order (TRO)] and requested that it be enforced.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 126a. At this stage in the litigation, we may assume that this reasonably implied the order was being violated. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 104 (1998). It is unclear from the complaint, but immaterial to our decision, whether respondent showed the police only the original “TRO” or also the permanent, modified restraining order that had superseded it on June 4. Three police officers were also named as defendants in the complaint, but the Court of Appeals concluded that they were entitled to qualified immunity, 366 F. 3d 1093, 1118 (CA10 2004) (en banc). Respondent did not file a cross-petition challenging that aspect of the judgment. Most of the Colorado-law eases cited by the Court of Appeals appeared in footnotes declaring them to be irrelevant because they involved only substantive due process (366 F. 3d, at 1100-1101, nn. 4-5), only statutes without restraining orders (id., at 1101, n. 5), or Colorado’s Government Immunity Act, which the Court of Appeals concluded applies “only to... state tort law claims” (id., at 1108-1109, n. 12). Our analysis is likewise unaffected by the Immunity Act or by the way that Colorado has dealt with substantive due process or cases that do not involve restraining orders. In something of an anyone-but-us approach, the dissent simultaneously (and thus unpersuasively) contends not only that this Court should certify a question to the Colorado Supreme Court, post, at 776-778 (opinion of Stevens, J.), but also that it should defer to the Tenth Circuit (which itself did not certify any such question), post, at 775-776. No party in this case has requested certification, even as an alternative disposition. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 56 (petitioner’s counsel “disfavor[ing]” certification); id., at 25-26 (counsel for the United States arguing against certification). At oral argument, in fact, respondent’s counsel declined Justice Stevens’ invitation to request it. Id., at 53. The Court of Appeals quoted one lawmaker’s description of how the bill “ ‘would really attack the domestic violence problems’ ”: “ ‘[T]he entire criminal justice system must act in a consistent manner, which does not now occur. The police must make probable cause arrests. The prosecutors must prosecute every case. Judges must apply appropriate sentences, and probation officers must monitor their probationers closely. And the offender needs to be sentenced to offender-specific therapy. “ ‘[T]he entire system must send the same message... [that] violence is criminal. And so we hope that House Bill 1258 starts us down this road.’ ” 366 F. 3d, at 1107 (quoting Tr. of Colorado House Judiciary Hearings on House Bill 1253, Feb. 15, 1994; emphasis deleted). Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-803.5(5) (Lexis 1999), “[a] peace officer arresting a person for violating a restraining order or otherwise enforcing a restraining order” was not to be held civilly or criminally liable unless he acted “in bad faith and with malice” or violated “rules adopted by the Colorado supreme court.” Respondent in fact concedes that an officer may “properly” decide not to enforce Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

D

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. The motion of American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc., for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted. On the ground that it was beyond its authority to grant the primary relief sought, the United States District Court dismissed appellants’ suit which alleged that Art. IV, § 6 (B), of the Ohio Constitution denied equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judgment is affirmed, but on the ground that appellants’ constitutional challenge to Art. IV, § 6 (B), was without merit. So ordered. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue in this ease concerns the application of Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968). Bruton involved two defendants accused of participating in the same crime and tried jointly before the same jury. One of the defendants had confessed. His confession named and incriminated the other defendant. The trial judge issued a limiting instruction, telling the jury that it should consider the confession as evidence only against the codefendant who had confessed and not against the defendant named in the confession. Bruton held that, despite the limiting instruction, the Constitution forbids the use of such a confession in the joint trial. The case before us differs from Bruton in that the prosecution here redacted the codefendant’s confession by substituting for the defendant’s name in the confession a blank space or the word “deleted.” We must decide whether these substitutions make a significant legal difference. We hold that they do not and that Bruton’s protective rule applies. I In 1993, Stacey Williams died after a severe beating. Anthony Bell gave a confession, to the Baltimore City police, in which he said that he (Bell), Kevin Gray, and Jacquin “Tank” Vanlandingham had participated in the beating that resulted in Williams’ death. Vanlandingham later died. A Maryland grand jury indicted Bell and Gray for murder. The State of Maryland tried them jointly. The trial judge, after denying Gray’s motion for a separate trial, permitted the State to introduce Bell’s confession into evidence at trial. But the judge ordered the confession redacted. Consequently, the police detective who read the confession into evidence said the word “deleted” or “deletion” whenever Gray’s name or Vanlandingham’s name appeared. Immediately after the police detective read the redacted confession to the jury, the prosecutor asked, “after he gave you that information, you subsequently were able to arrest Mr. Kevin Gray; is that correct?” The officer responded, “That’s correct.” App. 12. The State also introduced into evidence a written copy of the confession with those two names omitted, leaving in their place blank white spaces separated by commas. See Appendix, infra. The State produced other witnesses, who said that six persons (including Bell, Gray, and Vanlandingham) participated in the beating. Gray testified and denied his participation. Bell did not testify. When instructing the jury, the trial judge specified that the confession was evidence only against Bell; the instructions said that the jury should not use the confession as evidence against Gray. The jury convicted both Bell and Gray. Gray appealed. Maryland’s intermediate appellate court accepted Gray’s argument that Bruton prohibited use of the confession and set aside his conviction. 107 Md. App. 311, 667 A. 2d 983 (1995). Maryland’s highest court disagreed and reinstated the conviction. 344 Md. 417, 687 A. 2d 660 (1997). We granted certiorari in order to consider Bruton’s application to a redaction that replaces a name with an obvious blank space or symbol or word such as “deleted.” II In deciding whether Bruton’s protective rule applies to the redacted confession before us, we must consider both Bruton and a later ease, Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U. S. 200 (1987), which limited Bruton’s scope. We shall briefly summarize each of these two cases. Bruton, as we have said, involved two defendants — Evans and Bruton — tried jointly for robbery. Evans did not testify, but the Government introduced into evidence Evans’ confession, which stated that both he (Evans) and Bruton together had committed the robbery. 391 U. S., at 124. The trial judge told the jury it could consider the confession as evidence only against Evans, not against Bruton. Id., at 125. This Court held that, despite the limiting instruction, the introduction of Evans’ out-of-court confession at Bruton’s trial had violated Bruton’s right, protected by the Sixth Amendment, to cross-examine witnesses. Id., at 137. The Court recognized that in many circumstances a limiting instruction will adequately protect one defendant from the prejudicial effects of the introduction at a joint trial of evidence intended for use only against a different defendant. Id., at 135. But it said: “[TJhere are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored. Such a context is presented here, where the powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statements of a eodefendant, who stands accused side-by-side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the jury in a joint trial. Not only are the in-criminations devastating to the defendant but their credibility is inevitably suspect.... The unreliability of such evidence is intolerably compounded when the alleged accomplice, as here, does not testify and cannot be tested by cross-examination.” Id., at 135-136 (citations omitted). The Court found that Evans’ confession constituted just such a “powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statemen[t],” and that its introduction into evidence, insulated from cross-examination, violated Bruton’s Sixth Amendment rights. Id., at 135. In Richardson v. Marsh, supra, the Court considered a redacted confession. The ease involved a joint murder trial of Marsh and Williams. The State had redacted the confession of one defendant, Williams, so as to “omit all reference” to his codefendant, Marsh — “indeed, to omit all indication that anyone other than... Williams” and a third person had “participated in the crime.” Id., at 203 (emphasis in original). The trial court also instructed the jury not to consider the confession against Marsh. Id., at 205. As redacted, the confession indicated that Williams and the third person had discussed the murder in the front seat of a ear while they traveled to the victim’s house. Id., at 203-204, n. 1. The redacted confession contained no indication that Marsh — or any other person — was in the ear. Ibid. Later in the trial, however, Marsh testified that she was in the back seat of the ear. Id., at 204. For that reason, in context, the confession still could have helped convince the jury that Marsh knew about the murder in advance and therefore had participated knowingly in the crime. The Court held that this redacted confession fell outside Bruton’s seope and was admissible (with appropriate limiting instructions) at the joint trial. The Court distinguished Evans’ confession in Bruton as a confession that was “incriminating on its face,” and which had “expressly impli-eat[ed]” Bruton. 481 U. S., at 208. By contrast, Williams’ confession amounted to “evidence requiring linkage” in that it “became” incriminating in respect to Marsh “only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.” Ibid. The Court held “that the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a nontestifying eodefendant’s confession with a proper limiting instruction when, as here, the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant’s name, but any reference to his or her existence.” Id., at 211. The Court added: “We express no opinion on the admissibility of a confession in which the defendant’s name has been replaced with a symbol or neutral pronoun.” Id., at 211, n. 5. III Originally, the codefendant’s confession in the ease before us, like that in Bruton, referred to, and directly implicated, another defendant. The State, however, redacted that confession by removing the nonconfessing defendant’s name. Nonetheless, unlike Richardson’s redacted confession, this confession refers directly to the “existence” of the noncon-fessing defendant. The State has simply replaced the non-confessing defendant’s name with a kind of symbol, namely, the word “deleted” or a blank space set off by commas. The redacted confession, for example, responded to the question “Who was in the group that beat Stacey,” with the phrase, “Me, , and a few other guys.” See Appendix, infra, at 199. And when the police witness read the confession in court, he said the word “deleted” or “deletion” where the blank spaces appear. We therefore must decide a question that Richardson left open, namely, whether redaction that replaces a defendant’s name with an obvious indication of deletion, such as a blank space, the word “deleted,” or a similar symbol, still falls within Bruton’s protective rule. We hold that it does. Bruton, as interpreted by Richardson, holds that certain “powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statements of a co-defendant” — those naming another defendant — considered as a class, are so prejudicial that limiting instructions cannot work. Richardson, 481 U. S., at 207; Bruton, 391 U. S., at 135. Unless the prosecutor wishes to hold separate trials or to use separate juries or to abandon use of the confession, he must redact the confession to reduce significantly or to eliminate the special prejudice that the Bruton Court found. Redactions that simply replace a name with an obvious blank space or a word such as “deleted” or a symbol or other similarly obvious indications of alteration, however, leave statements that, considered as a class, so closely resemble Bru-ton’s unredacted statements that, in our view, the law must require the same result. For one thing, a jury will often react similarly to an unre-dacted confession and a confession redacted in this way, for the jury will often realize that the confession refers specifically to the defendant. This is true even when the State does not blatantly link the defendant to the deleted name, as it did in this case by asking whether Gray was arrested on the basis of information in Bell’s confession as soon as the officer had finished reading the redacted statement. Consider a simplified but typical example, a confession that reads “I, Bob Smith, along with Sam Jones, robbed the bank.” To replace the words “Sam Jones” with an obvious blank will not likely fool anyone. A juror somewhat familiar with criminal law would know immediately that the blank, in the phrase “I, Bob Smith, along with , robbed the bank,” refers to defendant Jones. A juror who does not know the law and who therefore wonders to whom the blank might refer need only lift his eyes to Jones, sitting at counsel table, to find what will seem the obvious answer, at least if the juror hears the judge’s instruction not to consider the confession as evidence against Jones, for that instruction will provide an obvious reason for the blank. A more sophisticated juror, wondering if the blank refers to someone else, might also wonder how, if it did, the prosecutor could argue the confession is reliable, for the prosecutor, after all, has been arguing that Jones, not someone else, helped Smith commit the crime. For another thing, the obvious deletion may well call the jurors’ attention specially to the removed name. By encouraging the jury to speculate about the reference, the redaction may overemphasize the importance of the confession’s accusation — once the jurors work out the reference. That is why Judge Learned Hand, many years ago, wrote in a similar instance that blacking out the name of a codefendant not only “would have been futile.... [T]here could not have been the slightest doubt as to whose names had been blacked out,” but “even if there had been, that blacking out itself would have not only laid the doubt, but underscored the answer.” United States v. Delli Paoli, 229 F. 2d 319, 321 (CA2 1956), aff’d, 352 U. S. 232 (1957), overruled by Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968). See also Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401, 430 (1945) (Rutledge, J., dissenting) (describing substitution of names in confession with “X” or “Y” and other similar redactions as “devices ... so obvious as perhaps to emphasize the identity of those they purported to conceal”). Finally, Bruton’s protected statements and statements redacted to leave a blank or some other similarly obvious alteration function the same way grammatically. They are directly accusatory. Evans’ statement in Bruton used a proper name to point explicitly to an accused defendant. And Bruton held that the “powerfully incriminating” effect of what Justice Stewart called “an out-of-court accusation,” 391 U. S., at 138 (concurring opinion), creates a special, and vital, need for cross-examination — a need that would be immediately obvious had the codefendant pointed directly to the defendant in the courtroom itself. The blank space in an obviously redacted confession also points directly to the defendant, and it accuses the defendant in a manner similar to Evans’ use of Bruton’s name or to a testifying codefend-ant’s accusatory finger. By way of contrast, the factual statement at issue in Richardson — a statement about what others said in the front seat of a car — differs from directly accusatory evidence in this respect, for it does not point directly to a defendant at all. We concede certain differences between Bruton and this case. A confession that uses a blank or the word “delete” (or, for that matter, a first name or a nickname) less obviously refers to the defendant than a confession that uses the defendant’s full and proper name. Moreover, in some instances the person to whom the blank refers may not be clear: Although the followup question asked by the State in this case eliminated all doubt, the reference might not be transparent in other eases in which a confession, like the present confession, uses two (or more) blanks, even though only one other defendant appears at trial, and in which the trial indicates that there are more participants than the confession has named. Nonetheless, as we have said, we believe that, considered as a class, redactions that replace a proper name with an obvious blank, the word “delete,” a symbol, or similarly notify the jury that a name has been deleted are similar enough to Bruton's unredaeted confessions as to warrant the same legal results. IV The State, in arguing for a contrary conclusion, relies heavily upon Richardson. But we do not believe Richardson controls the result here. We concede that Richardson placed outside the scope of Bruton’s rule those statements that incriminate inferentially. 481 U. S., at 208. We also concede that the jury must use inference to connect the statement in this redacted confession with the defendant. But inference pure and simple cannot make the critical difference, for if it did, then Richardson would also place outside Bruton’s scope confessions that use shortened first names, nicknames, descriptions as unique as the “red-haired, bearded, one-eyed man-with-a-limp,” United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U. S. 563, 591 (1966) (Fortas, J., dissenting), and perhaps even full names of defendants who are always known by a nickname. This Court has assumed, however, that nicknames and specific descriptions fall inside, not outside, Bruton’s protection. See Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250, 253 (1969) (assuming Bruton violation where confessions describe codefendant as the “white guy” and gives a description of his age, height, weight, and hair color). The Solicitor General, although supporting Maryland in this case, concedes that this is appropriate. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18-19, n. 8. That being so, Richardson must depend in significant part upon the kind of, not the simple fact of, inference. Richardson's inferences involved statements that did not refer directly to the defendant himself and which became incriminating “only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.” 481 U. S., at 208. The inferences at issue here involve statements that, despite redaction, obviously refer directly to someone, often obviously the defendant, and which involve inferences that a jury ordinarily could make immediately, even were the confession the very first item introduced at trial. Moreover, the redacted confession with the blank prominent on its face, in Richardson's words, “facially in-eriminat[es]” the codefendant. Id., at 209 (emphasis added). Like the confession in Bruton itself, the accusation that the redacted confession makes “is more vivid than inferential incrimination, and hence more difficult to thrust out of mind.” 481 U. S., at 208. Nor are the policy reasons that Richardson provided in support of its conclusion applicable here. Richardson expressed concern lest application of Bruton's rule apply where “redaction” of confessions, particularly “confessions incriminating by connection,” would often “not [be] possible,” thereby forcing prosecutors too often to abandon use either of the confession or of a joint trial. 481 U. S., at 209. Additional redaction of a confession that uses a blank space, the word “delete,” or a symbol, however, normally is possible. Consider as an example a portion of the confession before us: The witness who read the confession told the jury that the confession (among other things) said, “Question: Who was in the group that beat Stacey? “Answer: Me, deleted, deleted, and a few other guys.” App. 11. Why could the witness not, instead, have said: “Question: Who was in the group that beat Stacey? “Answer: Me and a few other guys.” Richardson itself provides a similar example of this kind of redaction. The confession there at issue had been “redacted to omit all reference to respondent — indeed, to omit all indication that anyone other than Martin and Williams participated in the crime,” 481 U. S., at 203 (emphasis deleted), and it did not indicate that it had been redacted. But cf. post, at 203 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (suggesting that the Court has “never before endorsed ... the redaction of a statement by some means other than the deletion of certain words, with the fact of the deletion shown”). The Richardson Court also feared that the inclusion, within Bruton’s, protective rule, of confessions that incriminated “by connection” too often would provoke mistrials, or would unnecessarily lead prosecutors to abandon the confession or joint trial, because neither the prosecutors nor the judge could easily predict, until after the introduction of all the evidence, whether or not Bruton had barred use of the confession. 481 U. S., at 209. To include the use of blanks, the word “delete,” symbols, or other indications of redaction, within Bruton’s protections, however, runs no such risk. Their use is easily identified prior to trial and does not depend, in any special way, upon the other evidence introduced in the case. We also note that several Circuits have interpreted Bruton similarly for many years, see, e. g., United States v. Garcia, 836 F. 2d 385 (CA8 1987); Clark v. Maggio, 737 F. 2d 471 (CA5 1984), yet no one has told us of any significant practical difficulties arising out of their administration of that rule. For these reasons, we hold that the confession here at issue, which substituted blanks and the word “delete” for the petitioner’s proper name, falls within the class of statements to which Bruton’s protections apply. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT [Typewritten Version of Handwritten Redacted Statement, State’s Exhibit 5B] (REDACTED STATEMENT) This is a statement of Anthony Bell, taken on 1-4-94 at 0925 hrs in the small interview room. Statement taken by Det. Pennington and Det. Ritz. (Q) Is your name Anthony Bell (A) Yes (Q) Are 19 years old and your date of Birth is 6-17-74 (A) Yes (Q) Can you read and write (A) Yes (Q) Are you under the influence of alcohol or drugs (A) No (Q) You were explained your Explanation of Rights, do you fully understand them (A) Yes (Q) Are you willing to answer questions without an attorney present at this time (A) Yes Anthony Bell [Page -2-] Bell, Anthony - (Q) Has anyone promised you anything if you answer questions (A) No (Q) What can you tell me about the beating of Stacey Williams that occurred on 10 November 1993 (A) An argument broke out between and Stacey in the 500 blk of Louden Ave Stacey got smacked and then ran into Wildwood Parkway. Me , and a few other guys ran after Stacey. We caught up to him on Wild-wood Parkway. We beat Stacey up. After we beat Stacey up, we walked him back to Louden Ave I then walked over and used the phone. Stacey and the others walked down Louden (Q) When Stacey was beaten on Wildwood Parkway, how was he beaten Anthony Bell [Page -3-] Bell, Anthony (Al) Hit, kicked (Q) Who hit and kicked Stacey (A) I hit Stacey, he was kicked but I don’t know who kicked him (Q) Who was in the group that beat Stacey (A) Me, , and a few other guys (Q) Do you have the other guys names (A) , and me, I don’t remember who was out there (Q) Did anyone pick Stacey up and drop him to the ground (A) No when I was there. (Q) What was the argument over between Stacey and Anthony Bell [Page -4-] Bell, Anthony (A) Some money that Stacey owed (Q) How many guys were hitting on Stacey (A) About six guys (Q) Do you have a black jacket with Park Heights written on the back (A) Yeh (Q) Who else has these jacket. (A) (Q) After reading this statement would you sign it (A) Yes Anthony Bell Det. William F. Ritz Det. Homer Pennington Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a companion case to Canton R. Co. v. Rogan, ante, p. 511. This appellant likewise challenges the validity under Art. I, § 10, cl. 2 of the Constitution of the application of the Maryland franchise tax to the extent that the gross receipts by which the tax is measured include revenues derived from the transportation of goods moving in foreign trade. Western Maryland Railway Company is an interstate common carrier by rail with lines in Maryland, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. It operates several piers in the port of Baltimore for handling cargoes of coal, ores and general merchandise, as well as a grain elevator. A substantial proportion of Western Maryland’s freight traffic from and to these facilities consists of the transportation of goods imported into or to be exported from the United States. The present case concerns the taxable years 1945 and 1946. For 1945 Western Maryland reported gross receipts of $33,156,236.74, of which the State Tax Commission, pursuant to the statutory formula, apportioned $13,219,822.62 to Maryland. For 1946 the amounts were $30,844,132.74 and $12,322,817.41 respectively. In subsequent amended returns Western Maryland excluded from taxable receipts the sums of $2,505,322.58 for 1945 and $5,405,559.44 for 1946. It claimed that these amounts represented revenues from the transportation over its lines of exports and imports and were therefore beyond the state’s power to tax. After a hearing, the Commission rejected this contention. Its assessment was sustained, and the case is here on appeal. What we have said in Canton R. Co. v. Rogan, supra, is dispositive of this case. The present facts illustrate how wide a zone of tax immunity would be created if the contrary holding were made in the Canton R. Co. case. There we were dealing with the handling of exports and imports within a port. Here we have transportation of exports and imports to and from the port. If Maryland were required to grant tax immunity to the services involved in getting the exports to the port and the imports to their destination, so would any other State. The ultimate impact of such a holding is difficult to measure, since manifold services are involved in the movement of exports and imports within the country. Problems of this nature, like many problems in the law, involve the drawing of lines. So far as taxes on activities connected with bringing exports to or imports from the ship are concerned, we think the line must be drawn at the water’s edge. Whether loading and unloading would be exempt is a question we reserve. Affirmed. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. [For opinion of Mr. Justice Jackson, joined by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, reserving judgment in this case and in No. 96, Canton R. Co. v. Rogan, see ante, p. 511.] Md. Ann. Code (1943 Supp.), Art. 81, §§ 94% and 95. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. In Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989) (Penry I), we held that the Texas capital sentencing scheme provided a constitutionally inadequate vehicle for jurors to consider and give effect to the mitigating evidence of mental retardation and childhood abuse the petitioner had presented. The petitioner in this case argues that the same scheme was inadequate for jurors to give effect to his evidence of low intelligence. The Texas courts rejected his claim, and a Federal District Court denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U. S. 473, 484 (2000), and therefore hold that a certificate of appealability should have issued. I Petitioner Robert Tennard was convicted by a jury of capital murder in October 1986. The evidence presented at trial indicated that Tennard and two accomplices killed two of his neighbors and robbed their house. Tennard himself stabbed one of the victims to death, and one of the accomplices killed the other victim with a hatchet. During the penalty phase of the trial, defense counsel called only one witness — Tennard’s parole officer — who testified that Tennard’s Department of Corrections record from a prior incarceration indicated that he had an IQ of 67. App. 28-29. He testified that the IQ test would have been administered as a matter of course. Ibid. The report, which indicated that Tennard was 17 years old at the time it was prepared, was admitted into evidence. On cross-examination, the parole officer testified that he did not know who had administered the test. Id., at 30. The government introduced evidence in the penalty phase regarding a prior conviction for rape, committed when Tennard. Was 16. The rape victim testified that she had escaped through a window after Tennard permitted her to go to the bathroom to take a bath, promising him she would not run away. Id., at 16-17. The jury was instructed to consider the appropriate punishment by answering the two “special issues” used at the time in Texas to establish whether a sentence of life imprisonment or death would be imposed: “Was the conduct of the defendant, Robert James Ten-nard, that caused the death of the deceased committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result?” Id., at 69 (the “deliberateness special issue”). “Is there a probability that the defendant, Robert James Tennard, would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society?” Id., at 70 (the “future dangerousness special issue”). In his penalty phase closing argument, defense counsel relied on both the IQ score and the rape victim’s testimony to suggest that Tennard’s limited mental faculties and gullible nature mitigated his culpability: “Tennard has got a 67 IQ. The same guy that told this poor unfortunate woman [the rape victim] that was trying to work that day, ‘Well, if I let you in there, will you leave?’ And he believed her. This guy with the 67 IQ, and she goes in and, sure enough, she escapes, just like she should have. That is uncontroverted testimony before you, that we have got a man before us that has got an intelligence quotient... that is that low.” Id., at 51. In rebuttal, the prosecution suggested that the low IQ evidence was simply irrelevant to the question of mitigation: “But whether he has a low IQ or not is not really the issue. Because the legislature, in asking you to address that question [the future dangerousness special issue], the reasons why he became a danger are not really relevant. The fact that he is a danger, that the evidence shows he’s a danger, is the criteria to use in answering that question.” Id., at 60. The jury answered both special issues in the affirmative, and Tennard was accordingly sentenced to death. Unsuccessful on direct appeal, Tennard sought state post-conviction relief. He argued that, in light of the instructions given to the jury, his death sentence had been obtained in violation of the Eighth Amendment as interpreted by this Court in Penry I. In that case, we had held that “it is not enough simply to allow the defendant to present mitigating evidence to the sentencer. The sentencer must also be able to consider and give effect to that evidence in imposing sentence.” Penry I, supra, at 319; see also Penry v. Johnson, 532 U. S. 782, 797 (2001) (Penry II) (describing “ ‘give effect to’ ” language of Penry I as “the key” to that decision). We concluded that the same two special issues that were presented to Tennard’s jury (plus a third immaterial to the questions now before us) were insufficient for the jury in Penry’s ease to consider and give effect to Penry’s evidence of mental retardation and childhood abuse, and therefore ran afoul of the Eighth Amendment. Penry I, 492 U. S., at 319-328. His mental retardation evidence, we held, “ ‘had relevance to [his] moral culpability beyond the scope of the [deliberateness] special verdict questio[n]’” because “[personal culpability is not solely a function of a defendant’s capacity to act ‘deliberately.’” Id., at 322 (some brackets in original). Moreover, because the “evidence concerning Penry’s mental retardation indicated that one effect of his retardation is his inability to learn from his mistakes,” his retardation was relevant to the future dangerousness special issue “only as an aggravating factor.” Id., at 323. As to the evidence of childhood abuse, we held that the two special issues simply failed to “provide a vehicle for the jury to give [it] mitigating effect.” Id., at 322-324. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Tennard’s Penry claim. Ex parte Tennard, 960 S. W. 2d 57 (1997) (en banc). Writing for a plurality of four, Presiding Judge McCormick observed that the definition of mental retardation adopted in Texas involves three components (“(1) subaverage general intellectual functioning, (2) concurrent deficits in adaptive behavior, and (3) onset during the early development period,” id., at 60), and concluded: “[Tennard’s] evidence of a low IQ score, standing alone, does not meet this definition. Qualitatively and quantitatively [Tennard’s] low IQ evidence does not approach the level of Johnny Paul Pen-ry’s evidence of mental retardation____[W]e find no evidence in this record that applicant is mentally retarded.” Id., at 61. The plurality went on to consider whether Tennard would be entitled to relief under Penry even if his low IQ fell “within Penry’s definition of mental retardation.” 960 S. W. 2d, at 61. It held that he would not. The court explained that, unlike the evidence presented in Penry’s case, “there is no evidence [that Tennard’s] low IQ rendered him unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct when he committed the offense, or that his low IQ rendered him unable to learn from his mistakes or . .. control his impulses ... .” Id., at 62. It found there was “no danger” that the jury would have given the evidence “only aggravating effect in answering” the future dangerousness special issue, and that the low IQ and gullibility evidence was not beyond the jury’s effective reach because the jury “could have used this evidence for a ‘no’ answer” to the deliberateness special issue. Ibid. Two judges concurred separately, and wrote that “this Court has sustained a Penry claim only when there is evidence of mental retardation. But even in those cases, the evidence of mental retardation was always something more than what was presented in this case.” 960 S. W. 2d, at 64 (opinion of Meyers, J.) (citations omitted). Taking a more permissive view of evidence of impaired intellectual functioning than did the plurality (“[F]or Penry purposes, courts should not distinguish between mental retardation and dementia,” even though the onset of the latter “may occur after age eighteen,” id., at 65), the concurring judges nevertheless concluded that “the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support” Tennard’s Penry claim. 960 S. W. 2d, at 63. The concurring judges also rejected Tennard’s contention that “evidence of an IQ of below 70 alone requires a ‘Penry instruction’ ” because -published opinions of the Texas courts had uniformly required more. Id., at 67. Judge Baird dissented, maintaining that the Court of Criminal Appeals had “consistent[ly]” held, in the wake of Penry I, that “evidence of mental retardation cannot be adequately considered within the statutory” special issues. 960 S. W. 2d, at 67. The court had strayed from its precedent, Judge Baird wrote, and instead of asking simply whether the jury had a vehicle for considering the mitigating evidence, had “weighted] the sufficiency of [Tennard’s] mitigating evidence.” Id., at 70. Judges Overstreet and Womack dissented without opinion. Id., at 63. Tennard sought federal habeas corpus relief. The District Court denied his petition. Tennard v. Johnson, Civ. Action No. H-98-4238 (SD Tex., July 25, 2000), App. 121. The court began by observing that “[e]vidence of a single low score on an unidentified intelligence test is not evidence that Tennard was mentally rétarded.” Id., at 128. It then considered whether the 67 IQ score was “within ‘the effective reach’ of the jury.” Ibid. Noting that “Tennard’s low IQ score was not concealed from the jury; it was in evidence, and both sides argued its significance for punishment,” the court concluded that the jury had adequate means, in the two special issues, by which to give effect to that mitigating evidence. Id., at 129. The court subsequently denied Tennard a certificate of appealability (COA). Civ. Action No. H-98-4238 (SD Tex., Oct. 17, 2000), see App. 2. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, after full briefing and oral argument, issued an opinion holding that Tennard was not entitled to a COA because his Penry claim was not debatable among jurists of reason. Tennard v. Cockrell, 284 F. 3d 591 (2002). The court began by stating the test applied in the Fifth Circuit to Penry claims, which involves a threshold inquiry into whether the petitioner presented “constitutionally relevant” mitigating evidence, that is, evidence of a “ ‘uniquely severe permanent handicap with which the defendant was burdened through no fault of his own,’ ” and evidence that “ ‘the criminal act was attributable to this severe permanent condition.’ ” 284 F. 3d, at 595. The court then held that Tennard was not entitled to a COA, for two reasons: First, it held that evidence of low IQ alone does not constitute a uniquely severe condition, and rejected Tennard’s claim that his evidence was of mental retardation, not just low IQ, because no evidence had been introduced tying his IQ score to retardation. Id., at 596. Second, it held that even if Tennard’s evidence was mental retardation evidence, his claim must fail because he did not show that the crime he committed was attributable to his low IQ. Id., at 596-597. Judge Dennis dissented, concluding that the Texas court’s application of Penry was unreasonable and that Tennard was entitled to habeas relief. 284 F. 3d, at 597-604. Tennard filed a petition for certiorari, and this Court granted the writ, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further consideration in light of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002). Tennard v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 802 (2002). The Fifth Circuit took the remand to be for consideration of a substantive Atkins claim. It observed that “Tennard has never argued that the Eighth Amendment prohibits his execution” and reinstated its prior panel opinion. Tennard v. Cockrell, 317 F. 3d 476, 477 (2003). We again granted certiorari. 540 U. S. 945 (2003). II A A GOA should issue if the applicant has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U. S. C. § 2253(c)(2), which we have interpreted to require that the “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U. S., at 484; see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 322, 336 (2003) (“Under the controlling standard, a petitioner must (sho[w] that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further’””). The petitioner’s arguments ultimately must be assessed under the deferential standard required by 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1): Relief may not be granted unless 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.” The State has never disputed that Tennard’s Penry claim was properly preserved for federal habeas review. Not only did the state court consider the question on the merits, we note that the issue was also raised by defense counsel prior to trial in a motion to set aside the indictment on the ground, among others, that the “Texas capital murder statutes do not explicitly allow the consideration of any specific mitigating circumstances at the punishment phase of the prosecution and, consequently, are violative of the accused’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and are also void for vagueness.” Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Indictment in Cause No. 431127 (248th Jud. Dist. Ct. Harris County, Tex., May 28, 1986), p. 4. B Despite paying lipservice to the principles guiding issuance of a COA, Tennard v. Cockrell, 284 F. 3d, at 594, the Fifth Circuit’s analysis proceeded along a distinctly different track. Rather than examining the District Court’s analysis of the Texas court decision, it invoked its own restrictive gloss on Penry I: “In reviewing a Penry claim, we must determine whether the mitigating evidence introduced at trial was constitutionally relevant and beyond the effective reach of the jury.... To be constitutionally relevant, ‘the evidence must show (1) a uniquely severe permanent handicap with which the defendant was burdened through no fault of his own, . . . and (2) that the criminal act was attributable to this severe permanent condition.’” Id., at 595 (quoting Davis v. Scott, 51 F. 3d 457, 460-461 (CA5 1995)). This test for “constitutional relevance,” characterized by the State at oral argument as a threshold “screening test,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 10, 28, appears to be applied uniformly in the Fifth Circuit to Penry claims. See, e. g., Bigby v. Cockrell, 340 F. 3d 259, 273 (2003); Robertson v. Cockrell, 325 F. 3d 243, 251 (2003) (en banc); Smith v. Cockrell, 311 F. 3d 661, 680 (2002); Blue v. Cockrell, 298 F. 3d 318, 320-321 (2002); Davis, supra, at 460-461. Only after the court finds that certain mitigating evidence is “constitutionally relevant” will it consider whether that evidence was within “ ‘the “effective reach” of the jur[y].’ ” E. g., Smith, supra, at 680 (court asks whether evidence was constitutionally relevant and, “ ‘if so,’ ” will consider whether it was within jury’s effective reach). In Tennard v. Cockrell, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Ten-nard was “precluded from establishing a Penry claim” because his low IQ evidence bore no nexus to the crime, and so did not move on to the “effective reach” question. 284 F. 3d, at 597. The Fifth Circuit’s test has no foundation in the decisions of this Court. Neither Penry I nor its progeny screened mitigating evidence for “constitutional relevance” before considering whether the jury instructions comported with the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, the mitigating evidence presented in Penry I was concededly relevant, see Tr. of Oral Arg., O. T. 1988, No. 87-6177, pp. 34-36, so even if limiting principles regarding relevance were suggested in our opinion — and we do not think they were — they could not have been material to the holding. When we addressed directly the relevance standard applicable to mitigating evidence in capital cases in McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U. S. 433, 440-441 (1990), we spoke in the most expansive terms. We established that the “meaning of relevance is no different in the context of mitigating evidence introduced in a capital sentencing proceeding” than in any other context, and thus the general evidentiary standard — “ ‘ “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’”” — applies. Id., at 440 (quoting New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 345 (1985)). We quoted approvingly from a dissenting opinion in the state court: “ ‘Relevant mitigating evidence is evidence which tends logically to prove or disprove some fact or circumstance which a fact-finder could reasonably deem to have mitigating value.’ ” 494 U. S., at 440 (quoting State v. McKoy, 323 N. C. 1, 55-56, 372 S. E. 2d 12, 45 (1988) (opinion of Exum, C. J.)). Thus, a State cannot bar “the consideration of... evidence if the sentencer could reasonably find that it warrants a sentence less than death.” 494 U. S., at 441. Once this low threshold for relevance is met, the “Eighth Amendment requires that the jury be able to consider and give effect to” a capital defendant’s mitigating evidence. Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 377-378 (1990) (citing Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982); Penry I, 492 U. S. 302 (1989)); see also Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 822 (1991) (“We have held that a State cannot preclude the sentencer from considering ‘any relevant mitigating evidence’ that the defendant proffers in support of a sentence less than death____[Virtually no limits are placed on the relevant mitigating evidence a capital defendant may introduce concerning his own circumstances” (quoting Eddings, supra, at 114)). The Fifth Circuit’s test is inconsistent with these principles. Most obviously, the test will screen out any positive aspect of a defendant’s character, because good character traits are neither “handicap[s]” nor typically traits to which criminal activity is “attributable.” In Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. 1, 5 (1986), however, we made clear that good character evidence can be evidence that, “[u]nder Eddings,. .. may not be excluded from the sentencer’s consideration.” We observed that even though the petitioner’s evidence of good conduct in jail did “not relate specifically to petitioner’s culpability for the crime he committed, there is no question but that such [evidence] would be ‘mitigating’ in the sense that [it] might serve ‘as a basis for a sentence less than death.’ Lockett, supra, at 604.” Id., at 4-5 (citation omitted). Such evidence, we said, of “a defendant’s disposition to make a well-behaved and peaceful adjustment to life in prison is... by its nature relevant to the sentencing determination.” Id., at 7. Of course, the Texas courts might reasonably conclude that evidence of good conduct in jail was within the jury’s effective reach via the future dangerousness special issue. See Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U. S. 164, 177-178 (1988) (plurality opinion); id., at 185-186 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). But under the Fifth Circuit’s test, the evidence would have been screened out before the time came to consider that question. In Tennard’s case, the Fifth Circuit invoked .both the “uniquely severe” and the “nexus” elements of its test to deny him relief under Penry I. Tennard v. Cockrell, 284 F. 3d, at 596 (contrasting Tennard’s low IQ evidence, which did “not constitute a uniquely severe condition,” with mental retardation, a “severe permanent condition”); id., at 596-597 (concluding that Penry claims “must fail because [Tennard] made no showing at trial that the criminal act was attributable” to his condition). Neither ground provided an adequate reason to fail to reach the heart of Tennard’s Penry claims. We have never denied that gravity has a place in the relevance analysis, insofar as evidence of a trivial feature of the defendant’s character or the circumstances of the crime is unlikely to have any tendency to mitigate the defendant’s culpability. See Skipper, supra, at 7, n. 2 (“We do not hold that all facets of the defendant’s ability to adjust to prison life must be treated as relevant and potentially mitigating. For example, we have no quarrel with the statement... that ‘how often [the defendant] will take a shower’ is irrelevant to the sentencing determination” (quoting State v. Plath, 281 S. C. 1, 15, 313 S. E. 2d 619, 627 (1984))). However, to say that only those features and circumstances that a panel of federal appellate judges deems to be “severe” (let alone “uniquely severe”) could have such a tendency is incorrect. Rather, the question is simply whether the evidence is of such a character that it “might serve ‘as a basis for a sentence less than death,’ ” Skipper, supra, at 5. The Fifth Circuit was likewise wrong to have refused to consider the debatability of the Penry question on the ground that Tennard had not adduced evidence that his crime was attributable to his low IQ. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S., at 316, we explained that impaired intellectual functioning is inherently mitigating: “[T]oday our society views mentally retarded offenders as categorically less culpable than the average criminal.” Nothing in our opinion suggested that a mentally retarded individual must establish a nexus between her mental capacity and her crime before the Eighth Amendment prohibition on executing her is triggered. Equally, we cannot countenance the suggestion that low IQ evidence is not relevant mitigating evidence — and thus that the Penry question need not even be asked — unless the defendant also establishes a nexus to the crime. The State claims that “the Fifth Circuit’s Penry I jurisprudence is not at issue” in this case. Brief for Respondent 35, n. 21; Tr. of Oral Arg. 33. To the contrary, that jurisprudence is directly at issue because the Fifth Circuit denied Tennard relief on the ground that he did not satisfy the requirements imposed by its “constitutional relevance” test. As we have explained, the Fifth Circuit’s screening test has no basis in our precedents and, indeed, is inconsistent with the standard we have adopted for relevance in the capital sentencing context. We therefore hold that the Fifth Circuit assessed Tennard’s Penry claim under an improper legal standard. Cf. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S., at 341 (holding, on certiorari review of the denial of a COA, that the Fifth Circuit had applied an incorrect standard by improperly merging the requirements of two statutory sections). C We turn to the analysis the Fifth Circuit should have conducted: Has Tennard “demonstrate^] that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong”? Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U. S., at 484. We conclude that he has. Reasonable jurists could conclude that the low IQ evidence Tennard presented was relevant mitigating evidence. Evidence of significantly impaired intellectual functioning is obviously evidence that “might serve ‘as a basis for a sentence less than death,’ ” Skipper, 476 U. S., at 5; see also, e. g., Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 535 (2003) (observing, with respect to individual with IQ of 79, that “Wigginsf]... diminished mental capacitie[s] further augment his mitigation case”); Burger v. Kemp, 483 U. S. 776, 779, 789, n. 7 (1987) (noting that petitioner “had an IQ of 82 and functioned at the level of a 12-year-old child,” and later that “[i]n light of petitioner’s youth at the time of the offense, . . . testimony that his ‘mental and emotional development were at a level several years below his chronological age’ could not have been excluded by the state court” (quoting Eddings, 455 U. S., at 116)). Reasonable jurists also could conclude that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ application of Penry to the facts of Tennard’s case was unreasonable. The relationship between the special issues and Tennard’s low IQ evidence has the same essential features as the relationship between the special issues and Penry’s mental retardation evidence. Impaired intellectual functioning has mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual’s ability to act deliberately. See Penry I, 492 U. S., at 322. A reasonable jurist could conclude that the jury might well have given Tennard’s low IQ evidence aggravating effect in considering his future dangerousness, not. only as a matter of probable inference from the evidence but also because the prosecutor told them to do so: “[W]hether he has a low IQ or not is not really the issue. Because the legislature, in asking you to address that question, the reasons why he became a danger are not really relevant. The fact that he is a danger, that the evidence shows he’s a danger, is the criteria to use in answering that question.” App. 60. Indeed, the prosecutor’s comments pressed exactly the most problematic interpretation of the special issues, suggesting that Tennard’s low IQ was irrelevant in mitigation, but relevant to the question whether he posed a future danger. * * * We hold that the Fifth Circuit’s “uniquely severe permanent handicap” and “nexus” tests are incorrect, and we reject them. We hold that reasonable jurists would find debatable or wrong the District Court’s disposition of Tennard’s low-IQ-based Penry claim, and that Tennard is therefore entitled to a COA. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. The Fifth Circuit stated that “a majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals found ‘no evidence in this record that [Tennard] is mentally retarded.’” 284 F. 3d, at 596-597. As described above, however, that was the conclusion of a four-judge plurality; the narrowest and thus controlling opinion on this point, correctly described by the Fifth Circuit as “concluding] that there was not enough evidence of mental retardation in the record to support Tennard’s claim,” id., at 596, n. 5 (emphasis added), is Judge Meyers’ concurring opinion. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented is whether the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a State from declaring an election void because the victorious candidate had announced to the voters during his campaign that he intended to serve at a salary less than that “fixed by law.” I This case involves a challenge to an application of the Kentucky Corrupt Practices Act. The parties were opposing candidates in the 1979 general election for the office of Jefferson County Commissioner, “C” District. Petitioner, Carl Brown, was the challenger; respondent, Earl Hartlage, was the incumbent. On August 15, 1979, in the course of the campaign, Brown held a televised press conference together with Bill Creech, the “B” District candidate on the same party ticket. Brown charged his opponent with complicity in a form of fiscal abuse: “There are . . . three part-time county commissioners. With state law limiting their authority and responsibility to legislation ... , it is clear that their jobs are simply not worth $20,000 a year each. It is ludicrous that the part-time commissioners nevertheless see fit to pay themselves the same amount as that paid the full-time county judge. The mere fact that state law allows such outrageous levels of remuneration does not in itself justify those payments. ... At a fiscal court meeting in 1976, Hartlage led a surprise move to . . . more than double the salaries of the county commissioners! His actions demonstrated his unmistakable disrespect for the office of the chief executive of this county and his utter disdain for the spirit of laws that govern our county system. . . . [U]sing the gray fringes of the law for his own personal gain, Hartlage led the move to funnel county tax dollars into commissioners’ pockets.” App. 1-2. On behalf of himself and his running mate, Creech pledged the taxpayers some relief: “We abhor the commissioners’ outrageous salaries. And to prove the strength of our convictions, one of our first official acts as county commissioners will be to lower our salary to a more realistic level. We will lower our salaries, saving the taxpayers $36,000 during our first term of office, by $3,000 each year.” Id., at 2. Shortly after the press conference, Brown and Creech learned that their commitment to lower their salaries arguably violated the Kentucky Corrupt Practices Act. On August 19, 1979, they issued a joint statement retracting their earlier pledge: “We are men enough to admit when we’ve made a mistake. “We have discovered that there are Kentucky court decisions and Attorney General opinions which indicate that our pledge to reduce our salaries if elected may be illegal. “. . . [W]e do hereby formally rescind our pledge to reduce the County Commissioners’ salary if elected and instead pledge to seek corrective legislation in the next session of the General Assembly, to correct this silly provision of State Law.” Id., at 4-5. In the November 6, 1979, election, Brown defeated Hartlage by 10,151 votes. Creech was defeated. Hartlage then filed this action in the Jefferson Circuit Court, alleging that Brown had violated the Corrupt Practices Act and seeking to have the election declared void and the office of Jefferson County Commissioner, “C” District, vacated by Brown. Section 121.055, upon which Hartlage based his claim, provides: “Candidates prohibited from making expenditure, loan, promise, agreement, or contract as to action when elected, in consideration for vote. — No candidate for nomination or election to any state, county, city or district office shall expend, pay, promise, loan or become pecuniarily liable in any way for money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, to any person in consideration of the vote or financial or moral support of that person. No such candidate shall promise, agree or make a contract with any person to vote for or support any particular individual, thing or measure, in consideration for the vote or the financial or moral support of that person in any election, primary or nominating convention, and no person shall require that any candidate make such a promise, agreement or contract.” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 121.055 (1982). In Sparks v. Boggs, 339 S.W. 2d 480 (1960), the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that candidates’ promises to serve at yearly salaries of $1, and to vote to distribute the salary savings to specified charitable organizations, violated the Corrupt Practices Act where the salaries had been “fixed by law.” In the instant case, the trial court found that Brown’s prospective salary had been fixed by law and that, under the reasoning of Sparks, Brown’s promise violated the Act. Nevertheless, the court concluded that in light of Brown’s retraction, the defeat of his running mate, who had joined in the pledge, and the presumption that the will of the people had been revealed through the election process, Brown had been “fairly elected.” App. 25. It thus declined to order a new election. Id., at 26. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed. 618 S. W. 2d 603. That court agreed with the Circuit Court that the salary of County Commissioners was fixed by law, and that Brown’s statement was proscribed by § 121.055 as construed in Sparks v. Boggs, supra. The Court of Appeals also held, however, that the trial court had erred in failing to order a new election. App. 34-35. It held that retraction of the offending statement was “of no consequence under the law of this state,” id., at 35, and that the trial court was mistaken in believing that it possessed the discretionary authority to balance the gravity of the violation against the disenfranchisement of the electorate that would result from declaring the election void, ibid. With respect to Brown’s First Amendment claims, the court was of the view that “[t]o hold that promises to serve at reduced compensation in violation of the Corrupt Practices Act are immune from regulation in view of the provisions of the United States Constitution is to open the door to arguments that other statements in violation of the Corrupt Practices Act are protected because they involve speech and self-expression.” Id., at 36. The court quoted approvingly the maxims that “[a] state may punish those who abuse the constitutional freedom of speech by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime, or disturb the public peace,” and that “[i]t has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language.” Id., at 36-37, quoting 16A Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law §§ 409, 507 (1979). The court then concluded that Brown’s “statement was not constitutionally protected.” App. 37. In an opinion denying petitioner’s motion for rehearing, the court more pointedly addressed petitioner’s First Amendment arguments. The court found that the State’s interest in the fairness and integrity of its elections was compelling, and that the State could insist that elections be conducted free of corruption and bribery. Id., at 39. The court restated its view that under the laws of the State a promise such as Brown’s was considered an attempt to buy votes or to bribe the voters. Ibid. Finally, the court rejected petitioner’s argument that § 121.055, as construed by Sparks, supra, was “unconstitutionally broad.” Although the court found some appeal in Brown’s argument that “[i]f carried to its logical extreme . . . any promise by a candidate to increase the efficiency and thus lower the cost of government might likewise be considered as an attempt to buy votes,” the court was of the view that Sparks controlled its disposition and suggested to petitioner that he seek reconsideration of that decision in the Supreme Court of Kentucky. App. 39-40. The Supreme Court of Kentucky denied review. Id., at 41. We granted the petition for certiorari. 450 U. S. 1029 (1981). II We begin our analysis of § 121.055 by acknowledging that the States have a legitimate interest in preserving the integrity of their electoral processes. Just as a State may take steps to ensure that its governing political institutions and officials properly discharge public responsibilities and maintain public trust and confidence, a State has a legitimate interest in upholding the integrity of the electoral process itself. But when a State seeks to uphold that interest by restricting speech, the limitations on state authority imposed by the First Amendment are manifestly implicated. At the core of the First Amendment are certain basic conceptions about the manner in which political discussion in a representative democracy should proceed. As we noted in Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 218-219 (1966): “Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such matters relating to political processes.” The free exchange of ideas provides special vitality to the process traditionally at the heart of American constitutional democracy — the political campaign. “[I]f it be conceded that the First Amendment was ‘fashioned to assure the unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,’ then it can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.” Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 271-272 (1971) (citation omitted). The political candidate does not lose the protection of the First Amendment when he declares himself for public office. Quite to the contrary: “The candidate, no less than any other person, has a First Amendment right to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tirelessly to advocate his own election and the election of other candidates. Indeed, it is of particular importance that candidates have the unfettered opportunity to make their views known so that the electorate may intelligently evaluate the candidates’ personal qualities and their positions on vital public issues before choosing among them on election day. Mr. Justice Brandéis’ observation that in our country ‘public discussion is a political duty,’ Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375 (1927) (concurring opinion), applies with special force to candidates for public office.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 52-53 (1976) (per curiam). When a State seeks to restrict directly the offer of ideas by a candidate to the voters, the First Amendment surely requires that the restriction be demonstrably supported by not only a legitimate state interest, but a compelling one, and that the restriction operate without unnecessarily circumscribing protected expression. III On its face, §121.055 prohibits a candidate from offering material benefits to voters in consideration for their votes, and, conversely, prohibits candidates from accepting payments in consideration for the manner in which they serve their public function. Sparks v. Boggs, 339 S. W. 2d 480 (1960), placed a not entirely obvious gloss on that provision with respect to candidate utterances concerning the salaries of the office for which they were running, by barring the candidate from promising to reduce his salary when that salary was already “fixed by law.” We thus consider the constitutionality of § 121.055 with respect to the proscription evident on the face of the statute, and in light of the more particularized concerns suggested by the Sparks gloss. We discern three bases upon which the application of the statute to Brown’s promise might conceivably be justified: first, as a prohibition on buying votes; second, as facilitating the candidacy of persons lacking independent wealth; and third, as an application of the State’s interests and prerogatives with respect to factual misstatements. We consider these possible justifications in turn. A The first sentence of § 121.055 prohibits a political candidate from giving, or promising to give, anything of value to a voter in exchange for his vote or support. In many of its possible applications, this provision would appear to present little constitutional difficulty, for a State may surely prohibit a candidate from buying votes. No body politic worthy of being called a democracy entrusts the selection of leaders to a process of auction or barter. And as a State may prohibit the giving of money or other things of value to a voter in exchange for his support, it may also declare unlawful an agreement embodying the intention to make such an exchange. Although agreements to engage in illegal conduct undoubtedly possess some element of association, the State may ban such illegal agreements without trenching on any right of association protected by the First Amendment. The fact that such an agreement necessarily takes the form of words does not confer upon it, or upon the underlying conduct, the constitutional immunities that the First Amendment extends to speech. Finally, while a solicitation to enter into an agreement arguably crosses the sometimes hazy line distinguishing conduct from pure speech, such a solicitation, even though it may have an impact in the political arena, remains in essence an invitation to engage in an illegal exchange for private profit, and may properly be prohibited. See Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U. S. 489, 496 (1982); Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n, 447 U. S. 557, 563-564 (1980); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Comm’n, 413 U. S. 376, 388 (1973). It is thus plain that some kinds of promises made by a candidate to voters, and some kinds of promises elicited by voters from candidates, may be declared illegal without constitutional difficulty. But it is equally plain that there are constitutional limits on the State’s power to prohibit candidates from making promises in the course of an election campaign. Some promises are universally acknowledged as legitimate, indeed “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy,” First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777 (1978); and the “maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means ... is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.” Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369 (1931). Candidate commitments enhance the accountability of government officials to the people whom they represent, and assist the voters in predicting the effect of their vote. The fact that some voters may find their self-interest reflected in a candidate’s commitment does not place that commitment beyond the reach of the First Amendment. We have never insisted that the franchise be exercised without taint of individual benefit; indeed, our tradition of political pluralism is partly predicated on the expectation that voters will pursue their individual good through the political process, and that the summation of these individual pursuits will further the collective welfare. So long as the hoped-for personal benefit is to be achieved through the normal processes of government, and not through some private arrangement, it has always been, and remains, a reputable basis upon which to cast one’s ballot. It remains to determine the standards by which we might distinguish between those “private arrangements” that are inconsistent with democratic government, and those candidate assurances that promote the representative foundation of our political system. We hesitate before attempting to formulate some test of constitutional legitimacy: the precise nature of the promise, the conditions upon which it is given, the circumstances under which it is made, the size of the audience, the nature and size of the group to be benefited, all might, in some instance and to varying extents, bear upon the constitutional assessment. But acknowledging the difficulty of rendering a concise formulation, or recognizing the possibility of borderline cases, does not disable us from identifying cases far from any troublesome border. It is clear that the statements of petitioner Brown in the course of the August 15 press conference were very different in character from the corrupting agreements and solicitations historically recognized as unprotected by the First Amendment. Notably, Brown’s commitment to serve at a reduced salary was made' openly, subject to the comment and criticism of his political opponent and to the scrutiny of the voters. We think the fact that the statement was made in full view of the electorate offers a strong indication that the statement contained nothing fundamentally at odds with our shared political ethic. The Kentucky Court of Appeals analogized Brown’s promise to a bribe. But however persuasive that analogy might be as a matter of state law, there is no constitutional basis upon which Brown’s pledge to reduce his salary might be equated with a candidate’s promise to pay voters for their support from his own pocketbook. Although upon election Brown would undoubtedly have had a valid claim to the salary that had been “fixed by law,” Brown did not offer the voters a payment from his personal funds. His was a declaration of intention to exercise the fiscal powers of government office within what he believed (albeit erroneously) to be the recognized framework of office. At least to outward appearances, the commitment was fully in accord with our basic understanding of legitimate activity by a government body. Before any implicit monetary benefit to the individual taxpayer might have been realized, public officials — among them, of course, Brown himself — would have had to approve that benefit in accordance with the good faith exercise of their public duties. Although Brown may have been incorrect in suggesting that his salary could have been lawfully reduced, this cannot, in itself, transform his promise into an invitation to engage in a private and politically corrupting arrangement. In addition, despite the Kentucky courts’ characterization of the promise to serve at a reduced salary as an offer “to reduce pro tanto the amount of taxes each individual taxpayer must pay, and thus ... an offer to the voter of pecuniary gain,” App. 33, it is impossible to discern in Brown’s generalized commitment any invitation to enter into an agreement that might place the statement outside the realm of unequivocal protection that the Constitution affords to political speech. Not only was the source of the promised benefit the public fisc, but that benefit was to extend beyond those voters who cast their ballots for Brown, to all taxpayers and citizens. Even if Brown’s commitment could in some sense have been deemed an “offer,” it scarcely contemplated a particularized acceptance or a quid pro quo arrangement. It was to be honored, “if elected”; it was conditioned not on any particular vote or votes, but entirely on the majority’s vote. In sum, Brown did not offer some private payment or donation in exchange for voter support; Brown’s statement can only be construed as an expression of his intention to exercise public power in a manner that he believed might be acceptable to some class of citizens. If Brown’s expressed intention had an individualized appeal to some taxpayers who felt themselves the likely beneficiaries of his form of fiscal restraint, that fact is of little constitutional significance. The benefits of most public policy changes accrue not only to the undifferentiated “public,” but more directly to particular individuals or groups. Like a promise to lower taxes, to increase efficiency in government, or indeed to increase taxes in order to provide some group with a desired public benefit or public service, Brown’s promise to reduce his salary cannot be deemed beyond the reach of the First Amendment, or considered as inviting the kind of corrupt arrangement the appearance of which a State may have a compelling interest in avoiding. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 27. A State may insist that candidates seeking the approval of the electorate work within the framework of our democratic institutions, and base their appeal on assertions of fitness for office and statements respecting the means by which they intend to further the public welfare. But a candidate’s promise to confer some ultimate benefit on the voter, qua taxpayer, citizen, or member of the general public, does not lie beyond the pale of First Amendment protection. B Sparks v. Boggs, 339 S. W. 2d 480 (1960), relied in part on the interest a State may have in ensuring that the willingness of some persons to serve in public office without remuneration does not make gratuitous service the sine qua non of plausible candidacy. The State might legitimately fear that such emphasis on free public service might result in persons of independent wealth but less ability being chosen over those who, though better qualified, could not afford to serve at a reduced salary. But if § 121.055 was designed to further this interest, it chooses a means unacceptable under the First Amendment. In barring certain public statements with respect to this issue, the State ban runs directly contrary to the fundamental premises underlying the First Amendment as the guardian of our democracy. That Amendment embodies our trust in the free exchange of ideas as the means by which the people are to choose between good ideas and bad, and between candidates for political office. The State’s fear that voters might make an ill-advised choice does not provide the State with a compelling justification for limiting speech. It is simply not the function of government to “select which issues are worth discussing or debating,” Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 96 (1972), in the course of a political campaign. C Amicus points out that §121.055, as applied through Sparks v. Boggs, supra, bars promises to serve at a reduced salary only when the salary of the official has been “fixed by law,” and where the promise cannot, therefore, be delivered. Of course, demonstrable falsehoods are not protected by the First Amendment in the same manner as truthful statements. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 340 (1974). But “erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and ... it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they ‘need ... to survive,’ ” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 271-272 (1964), quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 433 (1963). Section 121.055, as applied in this case, has not afforded the requisite “breathing space.” The Commonwealth of Kentucky has provided that a candidate for public office forfeits his electoral victory if he errs in announcing that he will, if elected, serve at a reduced salary. As the Kentucky courts have made clear in this case, a candidate’s liability under § 121.055 for such an error is absolute: His election victory must be voided even if the offending statement was made in good faith and was quickly repudiated. The chilling effect of such absolute accountability for factual misstatements in the course of political debate is incompatible with the atmosphere of free discussion contemplated by the First Amendment in the context of political campaigns. See Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265 (1971); Ocala Star-Banner Co. v. Damron, 401 U. S. 295 (1971). Although the state interest in protecting the political process from distortions caused by untrue and inaccurate speech is somewhat different from the state interest in protecting individuals from defamatory falsehoods, the principles underlying the First Amendment remain paramount. Whenever compatible with the underlying interests at stake, under the regime of that Amendment “we depend for . . . correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, at 339-340. In a political campaign, a candidate’s factual blunder is unlikely to escape the notice of, and correction by, the erring candidate’s political opponent. The preferred First Amendment remedy of “more speech, not enforced silence,” Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring), thus has special force. Cf. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, at 344. There has been no showing in this case that petitioner made the disputed statement other than in good faith and without knowledge of its falsity, or that he made the statement with reckless disregard as to whether it was false or not. Moreover, petitioner retracted the statement promptly after discovering that it might have been false. Under these circumstances, nullifying petitioner’s election victory was inconsistent with the atmosphere of robust political debate protected by the First Amendment. IV Because we conclude that § 121.055 has been applied in this case to limit speech in violation of the First Amendment, we reverse the judgment of the Kentucky Court of Appeals and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. The Chief Justice concurs in the judgment. Although respondent filed a brief in opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari, he did not file a brief on the merits. At the invitation of the Court, L. Stanley Chauvin, Jr., Esq., submitted a brief and argued in support of the judgment below as amicus curiae. Brown echoed his running mate’s call for fiscal restraint: “. . . These two proposals — cutting our own salaries and reorganizing the commissioner’s office staff, will save the taxpayers over $172,000 during our term of office. “We make these statements fully aware that the office we intend to occupy should set the tone for the type of public officials we intend to be. “Under our guidance, extravagance of public expense will be a thing of the past, and responsibility and integrity will be our watchwords, Progress through Cooperation our theme.” App 3. Hartlage received a total of 83,675 votes; Brown received 93,826 votes. Certificate of Election, id., at 7. In 1980, the provision was amended to replace the word “demand” in the last clause with the word “require.” 1980 Ky. Acts, ch. 292, § 3. Under Kentucky law, an equity action to contest an election may be maintained by any candidate who received more than 25% of the number of votes that were cast for the successful candidate. Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 120.155, 120.165 (1982). The Kentucky Corrupt Practices Act identifies a violation of § 121.055 as a proper basis for such a contest, and provides that “[i]f no such violation [of the Corrupt Practices Act] by the contestant, or by others in his behalf with his knowledge, appears, and it appears that such provisions have been violated by the contestee or by others in his behalf with his knowledge, the nomination or election of the contestee shall be declared void.” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 120.015 (1982). The Court of Appeals noted that under Kentucky law, “salaries for county officers elected by popular vote shall be set by the fiscal court ‘not later than the first Monday in May in the year in which the officers are elected, and the compensation of the officer shall not be changed during the term. . . .’ Brown promised to do an act that he could not legally do.” App. 32-33 (quoting Ky. Rev. Stat. § 64.530(4) (1980)). See Ky. Const. §§ 161, 246. The court quoted the following extract from Sparks, describing the rationale underlying the statute’s application to statements such as Brown’s: “ ‘ “An agreement by a candidate for office that if chosen he will discharge the duties of the office without compensation or for a lesser compensation than that provided by law, or will pay part of his salary into the public treasury, is illegal, whether made in good faith or not. The underlying principle ... is that when a candidate offers to discharge the duties of an elective office for less than the salary fixed by law, a salary which must be paid by taxation, he offers to reduce pro tanto the amount of taxes each individual taxpayer must pay, and thus makes an offer to the voter of pecuniary gain” [quoting 43 Am. Jur., Public Officers § 374, p. 159 (1942)]. ‘“It appears to us there can be no escape from the conclusion that a promise to take a reduction in the salary set by law for an elective public office, or an agreement to discharge the duties of the office gratis, advanced by one to induce votes for his candidacy, is so vicious in its tendency as to constitute a violation of the Corrupt Practices Act.’” App. 33. See The Federalist No. 10. The Madisonian democratic tradition extolled a system of political pluralism in which “the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.” The Federalist No. 51, p. 324 (H. Lodge ed. 1888). But it was also contemplated within that tradition that the individual may perceive his interest as according with the public good: “In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good.” Id., at 327. As explained by the Kentucky Court of Appeals: “To hold otherwise would permit the various elective public offices to become filled by those who would purchase their election thereto by making the most extravagant bid. The auction method of choosing a public officer would supplant the personal fitness test. Eventually most of the public offices would be occupied by the opulent, who could afford to serve without pay, or by the ambitious, who would serve only for the pittance of honor attached to the office, or by the designing grafter, who would surely obtain his remuneration by methods which would not bear scrutiny. Under such a system good government would certainly vanish from every subdivision of the state.” 339 S. W. 2d, at 484. Other courts have expressed similar views. For example, Sparks quoted with approval the following passage from the opinion of Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court of Kansas, later Justice Brewer of this Court, in State ex rel. Bill v. Elting, 29 Kan. 397, 402 (1883): “ ‘The theory of popular government is that the most worthy should hold the offices. Personal fitness — and in that is included moral character, intellectual ability, social standing, habits of life, and political convictions— is the single test which the law will recognize. That which throws other considerations into the scale, and to that extent tends to weaken the power to personal fitness, should not be tolerated. It tends to turn away the thought of the voter from the one question which should be paramount in his mind when he deposits his ballot. It is in spirit at least, bribery, more insidious, and therefore more dangerous, than the grosser form of directly offering money to the voter.’” 339 S. W. 2d., at 483-484. See also State ex rel. Clements v. Humphreys, 74 Tex. 466, 12 S. W. 99 (1889). A State could address this concern by prohibiting the reduction of a public official’s salary during his term of office, as Kentucky has done here. See n. 5, supra. Such a prohibition does not offend the First Amendment. We note, only in passing, that along with the 10 proposed Articles that upon ratification became the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, were 2 others, proposed Articles I and II, which were not ratified. Article II provided: “No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

C

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. This case involves a discrimination between two classes of widows of coal miners who died prior to December 6, 1974— those whose husbands were receiving pensions when they died and those whose husbands were still working although they were eligible for pensions. The 1974 collective-bargaining agreement between the United Mine Workers of America and the Bituminous Coal Operators’ Association, Inc., increased the health benefits for widows in the former class but made no increase for those in the latter class. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that this discrimination was arbitrary and therefore violated § 302(c)(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA). 205 U. S. App. D. C. 330, 640 F. 2d 416 (1981). We granted certiorari to decide whether § 302(c)(5) authorizes federal courts to review for reasonableness the provisions of a collective-bargaining agreement allocating health benefits among potential beneficiaries of an employee benefit trust fund. 454 U. S. 814. HM A description of the origin of the discrimination may explain why the Court of Appeals considered it arbitrary. The 1950 collective-bargaining agreement between the union and the operators established a fund to provide pension, health, and other benefits for certain miners and their dependents. That agreement defined the operators’ obligation to contribute to the fund but delegated the authority to define the amount of benefits and the conditions of eligibility to the trustees of the fund. In 1967 the trustees adopted two resolutions governing benefits for widows. Under the first, a widow of a retired miner who was receiving a pension at the time of his death was entitled to a death benefit of $2,000 payable over a 2-year period, and a widow of a miner who was eligible for a pension but who was still working at the time of his death was entitled to a $5,000 benefit payable over a 5-year period. The second resolution authorized hospital and medical-care benefits for unremarried widows of deceased miners while they were receiving the widows’ benefit authorized by the first resolution. The effect of these two resolutions was to provide a greater health benefit for widows of working miners who were eligible for pensions than for widows of miners who were receiving pension benefits. In 1974, because of their concerns about compliance with minimum funding standards of the recently enacted Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §1001 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), and about the actuarial soundness of the 1950 fund, the union and the operators agreed to restructure the industry’s benefit program. They agreed that the amount of benefits and the eligibility requirements, as well as the level of contributions, should be specified in their collective-bargaining agreement. They also decided to replace the single 1950 fund with four separate funds, two of which provided pension benefits while two others, the “1950 Benefit Trust” and the “1974 Benefit Trust,” provided health and death benefits. The 1950 Benefit Trust, which is at issue in this case, extended lifetime health coverage to certain widows of miners who died before December 6, 1974, the effective date of the 1974 collective-bargaining agreement. During the 1974 negotiations, the union originally demanded that all unremarried widows who were entitled to health benefits for either two years or five years under the old plan be extended lifetime health coverage. Both the amount and the uncertainty of the cost of such coverage for these widows concerned the operators. Relatively early in the negotiations they nevertheless accepted the demand as it related to widows of miners who would die after the agreement became effective, but they objected to the requested increase for widows of already deceased miners. The operators estimated that the latter class consisted of between 25,000 and 50,000 widows, whereas the union’s estimate was approximately 40,000. Of that total, about 10% were believed to be widows of miners who had been working at the time of their death, even though eligible for pensions, and thus already had been entitled to five years of health benefits. In the final stages of the 1974 negotiations, after a strike had begun, the operators made a package proposal to the union that excluded this smaller group of perhaps 4,000 or 5,000 widows from any increased health benefits. Besides making it possible to conclude an otherwise acceptable, complex collective-bargaining agreement and to avoid a prolonged strike, the union received no separately identifiable quid pro quo for the rejection of this portion of its demands. II Respondents are widows of coal miners who died in 1967 and 1971, respectively. Their husbands were over age 55, had been employed in the industry for over 20 years, and had spent most of their careers in the employ of contributing employers. They were eligible for pensions but were still working at the time of their deaths. Under the 1950 plan, respondents were entitled to $5,000 death benefits and health benefits for five years. They received no additional benefits from the 1974 agreement. Had their husbands applied for the pensions for which they were eligible, they now would be entitled to lifetime health coverage. On their own behalf and as representatives of a class of similarly situated widows and dependents of deceased coal miners, respondents brought this action against the trustees of the funds in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They alleged that the requirement that a miner actually be receiving a pension for which he was eligible at the time of his death in order to make his survivors eligible for lifetime health benefits has no rational relationship with the purposes of the trust funds and therefore was illegal under §302 of the LMRA. They prayed that the requirement be declared null and void and that the trustees be ordered to pay to them health benefits retrospectively and prospectively. After certifying the respondents’ class, and after indicating that the plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing of arbitrariness, the court scheduled a hearing to give the petitioners an opportunity to prove that the discrimination against respondents was not arbitrary. At that hearing the District Court received documents prepared during the 1974 collective-bargaining negotiations and heard the testimony of participants in those negotiations. Based on that evidence, the District Court found that “the question of whether or not to provide plaintiffs the benefits they now seek was the subject of explicit, informed and intense bargaining.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 25a. The court rejected the argument that the eligibility requirement was arbitrary and capricious and held that “the trustees are bound to adhere to the terms of the agreement.” Ibid. The court concluded: “Public policy dictates the limited role of courts in reviewing collectively bargained agreements. The familiar history of the anguished relations between the bargaining parties in this case only underscores the delicacy of the balance set in each agreement. Plaintiffs’ relief, if indeed any is due, cannot come from the courts.” Ibid. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. Relying on the § 302(c)(5) requirement that jointly administered pension trusts be maintained “for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of [the contributing] employer, and their families and dependents,” the court held that any rule denying benefits to employees on whose behalf significant contributions had been made must be explained to its satisfaction, particularly if benefits were authorized for others who had worked a lesser period of time for contributing employers. 205 U. S. App. D. C., at 335, 640 F. 2d, at 421. In this case, the trustees were unable to produce an acceptable explanation for the discrimination between widows of pensioners and widows of pension-eligible miners. Specifically, the court held that it was “not enough that the particular eligibility standards were adopted simply because that enabled resolution of a collective bargaining dispute.” Id., at 338, 640 F. 2d, at 424. Recognizing the legitimacy of a concern about actuarial soundness of pension trust funds, the court held that “financial integrity must be secured by methods dividing beneficiaries from nonbeneficiaries on lines reasonably calculated to further the fund’s purposes.” Id., at 337-338, 640 F. 2d, at 423-424. Judge Robb, in dissent, agreed with the reasoning of the District Court and added the observation that the discrimination against widows of active miners was rational because those widows had received a larger death benefit than widows of pensioners, and because their needs may have been lesser than those of the families of pensioners since their husbands had continued to work after they were eligible for pensions. Ill The Court of Appeals held that the requirement in § 302(c)(5) that an employee benefit trust fund be maintained “for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees . . . and their families and dependents” means that eligibility rules fixed by a collective-bargaining agreement must meet a reasonableness standard. The statutory language hardly embodies this reasonableness requirement. Its plain meaning is simply that employer contributions to employee benefit trust funds must accrue to the benefit of employees and their families and dependents, to the exclusion of all others. Indeed, this has been this Court’s consistent interpretation of § 302(c)(5). Just last Term, the Court reiterated that “the ‘sole purpose’ of § 302(c)(5) is to ensure that employee benefit trust funds ‘are legitimate trust funds, used actually for the specified benefits to the employees of the employers who contribute to them ....’” NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., 453 U. S. 322, 331 (quoting 93 Cong. Rec. 4678 (1947), reprinted in 2 Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, p. 1305 (Leg. Hist. LMRA)). See Arroyo v. United States, 359 U. S. 419, 425-426. Accord, Walsh v. Schlecht, 429 U. S. 401, 410-411; Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp., 361 U. S. 459, 474 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). This reading is amply supported by the legislative history. See, e. g., 93 Cong. Rec. 4877 (1947), 2 Leg. Hist. LMRA, at 1312; 93 Cong. Rec., at 4752-4753, 2 Leg. Hist. LMRA, at 1321-1322. The section was meant to protect employees from the risk that funds contributed by their employers for the benefit of the employees and their families might be diverted to other union purposes or even to the private benefit of faithless union leaders. Proponents of this section were concerned that pension funds administered entirely by union leadership might serve as “war chests” to support union programs or political factions, or might become vehicles through which “racketeers” accepted bribes or extorted money from employers. Our interpretation of the purpose of the “sole and exclusive benefit” requirement is reinforced by the other requirements of § 302(c)(5). Section 302(c)(5) is an exception in a criminal statute that broadly prohibits employers from making direct or indirect payments to unions or union officials. Each of the specific conditions that must be satisfied to exempt employer contributions to pension funds from the criminal sanction is consistent with the nondiversion purpose. The fund must be established “for the sole and exclusive benefit” of employees and their families and dependents; contributions must be held in trust for that purpose and must be used exclusively for health, retirement, death, disability, or unemployment benefits; the basis for paying benefits must be specified in a written agreement; and the fund must be jointly administered by representatives of management and labor. All the conditions in the section fortify the basic requirement that employer contributions be administered for the sole and exclusive benefit of employees. None of the conditions places any restriction on the allocation of the funds among the persons protected by § 302(c)(5). The Court of Appeals did not attempt to ground its holding on the text or legislative history of § 302(c)(5). Rather, the court relied upon cases in which trustees of employee benefit trust funds, not the collective-bargaining agreement, fixed the eligibility rules and benefit levels. The Court of Appeals has held in those cases “that the Trustees have ‘full authority . . . with respect to questions of coverage and eligibility’ and that the court’s role is limited to ascertaining whether the Trustees’ broad discretion has been abused by the adoption of arbitrary or capricious standards.” Pete v. United Mine Workers of America Welfare & Retirement Fund of 1950, 171 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 9, 517 F. 2d 1275, 1283 (1975) (en banc) (footnote omitted). Noting that “[t]he institutional arrangements creating this Fund and specifying the purposes to which it is to be devoted are cast expressly in fiduciary form,” the court stated that “the Trustees, like all fiduciaries, are subject to judicial correction in a proper case upon a showing that they have acted arbitrarily or capriciously towards one of the persons to whom their trust obligations run.” Kosty v. Lewis, 115 U. S. App. D. C. 343, 346, 319 F. 2d 744, 747 (1963), cert. denied, 375 U. S. 964. Those cases, however, provide no support for the Court of Appeals’ holding in this case. The petitioner trustees were not given “full authority” to determine eligibility requirements and benefit levels, for these were fixed by the 1974 collective-bargaining agreement. By the terms of the trust created by that agreement, the trustees are obligated to enforce these determinations unless modification is required to comply with applicable federal law. The common law of trusts does not alter this obligation. See NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., 453 U. S., at 336-337; Restatement (Second) of Trusts §164 (1959). Cf. 29 U. S. C. § 1104(a)(1)(D) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). Absent- conflict with federal law, then, the trustees breached no fiduciary duties in administering the 1950 Benefit Trust in accordance with the terms established in the 1974 collective-bargaining agreement. Section 302(c)(5) plainly does not impose the Court of Appeals’ reasonableness requirement, and respondents do not offer any alternative federal law to sustain the court’s holding. There is no general requirement that the complex schedule of the various employee benefits must withstand judicial review under an undefined standard of reasonableness. This is no less true when the potential beneficiaries subject to discriminatory treatment are not members of the bargaining unit; we previously have recognized that former members and their families may suffer from discrimination in collective-bargaining agreements because the union need not “affirmatively . . . represent [them] or . . . take into account their interests in making bona fide economic decisions in behalf of those whom it does represent.” Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U. S. 157, 181, n. 20. Moreover, because finite contributions must be allocated among potential beneficiaries, inevitably financial and actuarial considerations sometimes will provide the only justification for an eligibility condition that discriminates between different classes of potential applicants for benefits. As long as such conditions do not violate federal law or policy, they are entitled to the same respect as any other provision in a collective-bargaining agreement. The substantive terms of jointly administered employee benefit plans must comply with the detailed and comprehensive standards of the ERISA. The terms of any collective-bargaining agreement must comply with federal laws that prohibit discrimination on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; that protect veterans; that regulate certain industries; and that preserve our competitive economy. Obviously, an agreement must also be substantively consistent with the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq Moreover, in the collective-bargaining process, the union must fairly represent the interests of all employees in the unit. But when neither the collective-bargaining process nor its end product violates any command of Congress, a federal court has no authority to modify the substantive terms of a collective-bargaining contract. The record in this case discloses no violation of § 302(c)(5) or of any other federal law. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed. It is so ordered. That section provides in relevant part: “The provisions of this section [forbidding transfers between employer and representatives of employees] shall not be applicable ... (5) with respect to money or other thing of value paid to a trust fund established by such representative, for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of such employer, and their families and dependents (or of such employees, families, and dependents jointly with the employees of other employers making similar payments, and their families and dependents): Provided, That (A) such payments are held in trust for the purpose of paying, either from principal or income or both, for the benefit of employees, their families and dependents, for medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death of employees, compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupational activity or insurancé to provide any of the foregoing, or unemployment benefits or life insurance, disability and sickness insurance, or accident insurance; (B) the detailed basis on which such payments are to be made is specified in a written agreement with the employer, and employees and employers are equally represented in the administration of such fund, together with such neutral persons as the representatives of the employers and the representatives of employees may agree upon . . . ; and (C) such payments as are intended to be used for the purpose of providing pensions or annuities for employees are made to a separate trust which provides that the funds held therein cannot be used for any purpose other than paying such pension or annuities. . . .” 61 Stat. 157, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 186(c) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). The National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1950, in creating the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund of 1950, provided in part: “Subject to the stated purposes of this Fund, the Trustees shall have full authority, within the terms and provisions of the ‘Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947,’ and other applicable law, with respect to questions of coverage and eligibility, priorities among classes of benefits, amounts of benefits, methods of providing or arranging for provisions for benefits, investment of trust funds, and all other related matters.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 78a. Resolution No. 68, adopted on January 19, 1967, established “a Widows and Survivors Benefit of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) as a result of the death of miners who at the time of death were regularly employed in a classified job in the bituminous coal industry by coal operators signatory to the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1950, as amended, other than those exempted from said Agreement, and two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) in the event of the death of miners who at the time of death were receiving Trust Fund pensions and not employed outside the coal industry. . . .” App. to Pet. for Cert. 82a. The $5,000 benefit was payable in 60 monthly installments and the $2,000 benefit was payable in 22 monthly installments. Id., at 85a. Resolution No. 69, also adopted on January 19, 1967, provided in part: “The following persons shall be eligible for benefits herein provided for hospital and medical care . . . : . “5. Unremarried widows and unmarried dependent children under twenty-two (22) years of age of deceased miners described in Subpara-graph B of this Paragraph I as long as they are the recipients of Widows and Survivors Benefits provided in Paragraph II of Resolution No. 68.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 90a. Article II, E(3), of the 1950 Benefit Trust provides that lifetime health benefits shall be provided to the survivors “of a miner who died. . . [pjrior to the effective date of this Plan ... at a time when he was receiving a retirement or disability pension under the eligibility rules then in effect of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund of 1950.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 114a. “By the trustee’s interpretation, this clause applies to survivors of miners who died while collecting pensions and, as well, to survivors of those who, though not actually receiving retirement payments at death, had ceased work and applied for them. This construction, however, excludes widows and dependents of those miners who were eligible for pensions but who continued working and later died before applying for health-care benefits.” 205 U. S. App. D. C. 330, 333, 640 F. 2d 416, 419 (1981) (footnotes omitted). Federal district courts have jurisdiction to restrain violations of § 302. 29 U. S. C. § 186(e). “The class represents all surviving spouses and dependents of deceased miners who satisfied the age and service requirements for pension benefits at the time of death and who “(1) were working in classified service in the coal industry at the time of death and had not applied for a pension, or “(2) had applied for and were eligible to receive pension benefits but were not receiving such benefits at the time of death because of their return to classified service in the coal industry.” 449 F. Supp. 941, 942 (1978). The Court in Arroyo stated: “Those members of Congress who supported [§ 302] were concerned with corruption of collective bargaining through bribery of employee representatives by employers, with extortion by employee representatives, and with the possible abuse by union officers of the power which they might achieve if welfare funds were left to their sole control. Congressional attention was focussed particularly upon the latter problem because of the demands which had then recently been made by a large international union for the establishment of a welfare fund to be financed by employers’ contributions and administered exclusively by union officials. See United States v. Ryan, 350 U. S. 299. “Congress believed that if welfare funds were established which did not define with specificity the benefits payable thereunder, a substantial danger existed that such funds might be employed to perpetuate control of union officers, for political purposes, or even for personal gain. See 92 Cong. Rec. 4892-4894, 4899, 5181, 5345-5346; S. Rep. No. 105,80th Cong., 1st Sess., at 52; 93 Cong. Rec. 4678, 4746-4747. To remove these dangers, specific standards were established to assure that welfare funds would be established only for purposes which Congress considered proper and expended only for the purposes for which they were established. See Cox, Some Aspects of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Harv. L. Rev. 274, 290” (footnotes omitted). Senator Taft, the primary author of the LMRA, stated: “Certainly unless we impose some restrictions we shall find that the welfare fund will become merely a war chest for the particular union, and that the employees for whose benefit it is supposed to be established, for certain definite welfare purposes, will have no legal rights and will not receive the kind of benefits to which they are entitled after such deductions from their wages.” Senator Ball, one of the sponsors of the floor amendment that became § 302, stated: “All that is sought to be done by the amendment is to protect the rights of employees. After all, on any reasonable basis, payments by an employer to such a fund are in effect compensation to his employees. All that is sought to be done in the amendment is to see to it that the rights of employees in the fund are protected. . . . “In other words, when the union has complete control of this fund, when there is no detailed provision in the agreement creating the fund respecting the benefits which are to go to employees, the union and its leadership will always come first in the administration of the fund, and the benefits to which the employees supposedly are entitled will come second.” See NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., 453 U. S. 322, 328-329; H. R. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 66-67 (1947), 1 Leg. Hist. LMRA, at 570-571. In NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., supra, at 330, the Court held that in enacting § 302(c)(5) “Congress intended to impose on trustees traditional fiduciary duties.” The Court did not decide, nor do we decide today, whether federal courts sitting as courts of equity are authorized to enforce those duties. It is, of course, clear that compliance with the specific standards of § 302(c)(5) in the administration of welfare funds is enforceable in federal district courts under § 302(e) of the LMRA. See Arroyo v. United States, 359 U. S. 419, 426-427. “The Trustees are authorized, upon approval by the Employers and the Union, to make such changes in the Plans and Trusts hereunder as they may deem to be necessary or appropriate. “They are also authorized and directed, after adquate notice and consultation with the Employers and Union, to make such changes in the Plans and Trusts hereunder, including any retroactive modifications or amendments, which shall be necessary: “(a) to conform the terms of each Plan and Trust to the requirements of ERISA, or any other applicable federal law, and the regulations issued thereunder; “(d) to comply with all applicable court or government decisions or ruling.” National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1974, art. XX, § (h)(5), App. to Pet. for Cert. 106a. We also recognized that these persons are not without protection: “Under established contract principles, vested retirement rights may not be altered without the pensioner’s consent. See generally Note, 70 Col. L. Rev. 909, 916-920 (1970). The retiree, moreover, would have a federal remedy under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act for breach of contract if his benefits were unilaterally changed. See Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195, 200-201 (1962); Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp., 361 U. S. 459, 470 (1960).” 404 U. S., at 181, n. 20. See, e. g., Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747 (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U. S. 188 (Equal Pay Act). See, e. g., Fishgold v. Sullivan Dry Dock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. 275, 285. See, e. g., Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Nemitz, 404 U. S. 37. See, e. g., Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U. S. 657. See, e. g., NLRB v. Magnavox Co., 415 U. S. 322; Radio Officers v. NLRB, 347 U. S. 17. See, e. g., Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 177; Syres v. Oil Workers, 350 U. S. 892; Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U. S. 330; Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192. See also Railroad Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U. S. 768. See, e. g., Carbon Fuel Co. v. Mine Workers, 444 U. S. 212, 218-219; H. K. Porter Co. v. NLRB, 397 U. S. 99, 105-108; NLRB v. Insurance Agents, 361 U. S. 477, 488; Teamsters v. Oliver, 358 U. S. 283, 295-296; NLRB v. American National Ins. Co., 343 U. S. 395, 404. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

G

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. Moved to action by a widely felt need to sponsor independ-' ent sources of broadcast programming as an alternative to commercial broadcasting, Congress set out in 1967 to support and promote the development of noncommercial, educational broadcasting stations. A keystone of Congress’ program was the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, Pub. L. 90-129, 81 Stat. 365, 47 U. S. C. §390 et seq., which established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a nonprofit corporation authorized to disburse federal funds to noncommercial television and radio stations in support of station operations and educational programming. Section 399 of that Act, as amended by the Public Broadcasting Amendments Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-35, 95 Stat. 730, forbids any “noncommercial educational broadcasting station which receives a grant from the Corporation” to “engage in editorializing.” 47 U. S. C. §399. In this case, we are called upon to decide whether Congress, by imposing that restriction, has passed a “law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. I A The history of noncommercial, educational broadcasting in the United States is as old as broadcasting itself. In its first efforts to regulate broadcasting, Congress made no special provision for noncommercial, educational broadcasting stations. Under the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934, such stations were subject to the same licensing requirements as their commercial counterparts. As commercial broadcasting rapidly expanded during the 1930’s, however, the percentage of broadcast licenses held by noncommercial stations began to shrink. In 1939, recognizing the potential effect of these commercial pressures on educational stations, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) decided to reserve certain frequencies for educational radio, 47 CFR §§4.131-4.133 (1939), and in 1945, the Commission allocated 20 frequencies on the new FM spectrum exclusively for educational use, FCC, Report of Proposed Allocations 77 (1945). Similarly, in 1952, with the advent of television, the FCC reserved certain television channels solely for educational stations. Television Assignments, 41 F. C. C. 148 (1952). Helped in part by these allocations, a wide variety of noncommercial stations, some funded by state and local governments and others by private donations and foundation grants, developed during this period. It was not until 1962, however, that Congress provided any direct financial assistance to noncommercial, educational broadcasting. This first step was taken with the passage of the Educational Television Act of 1962, Pub. L. 87-447, 76 Stat. 64, which authorized the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to distribute $32 million in matching grants over a 5-year period for the construction of noncommercial television facilities. Impetus for expanded federal involvement came in 1967 when the Carnegie Corporation sponsored a special commission to review the state of educational broadcasting. Finding that the prospects for an expanded public broadcasting system rested on “the vigor of its local stations,” but that these stations were hobbled by chronic underfinancing, the Carnegie Commission called upon the Federal Government to supplement existing state, local, and private financing so that educational broadcasting could realize its full potential as a true alternative to commercial broadcasting. Carnegie I, at 33-34, 36-37. In fashioning a legislative proposal to carry out this vision, the Commission recommended the creation of a nonprofit, nongovernmental “Corporation for Public Television” to provide support for noncommercial broadcasting, including funding for new program production, local station operations, and the establishment of satellite interconnection facilities to permit nationwide distribution of educational programs to all local stations that wished to receive and use them. Id., at 37-38. The Commission’s report met with widespread approval, and its proposals became the blueprint for the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which established the basic framework of the public broadcasting system of today. Titles I and III of the Act authorized over $38 million for continued HEW construction grants and for the study of instructional television. Title II created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB or Corporation), a nonprofit, private corporation governed by a 15-person, bipartisan Board of Directors appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Corporation was given power to fund “the production of... educational television or radio programs for national or regional distribution,” 47 U. S. C. § 396(g)(2)(B) (1976 ed.), to make grants to local broadcasting stations that would “aid in financing local educational... programming costs of such stations,” § 396(g)(2)(C), and to assist in the establishment and development of national interconnection facilities. § 396(g)(2)(E). Aside from conferring these powers on the Corporation, Congress also adopted other measures designed both to ensure the autonomy of the Corporation and to protect the local stations from governmental interference and control. For example, all federal agencies, officers, and employees were prohibited from “exercising] any direction, supervision or control” over the Corporation or local stations, §398, and the Corporation itself was forbidden to “own or operate any television or radio broadcast station,” § 396(g)(3), and was further required to “carry out its purposes and functions... in ways that will most effectively assure the maximum freedom... from interference with or control of program content” of the local stations. § 396(g)(1)(D). B Appellee Pacifica Foundation is a nonprofit corporation that owns and operates several noncommercial educational broadcasting stations in five major metropolitan areas. Its licensees have received and are presently receiving grants from the Corporation and are therefore prohibited from editorializing by the terms of § 399, as originally enacted and as recently amended. In April 1979, appellees brought this suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California challenging the constitutionality of former § 399. In October 1979, the Department of Justice informed both Houses of Congress and the District Court that it had decided not to defend the constitutionality of the statute. The Senate then adopted a resolution directing its counsel to intervene as amicus curiae in support of § 399. Counsel appeared and subsequently obtained dismissal of the lawsuit for want of a justiciable controversy because the Government had decided not to enforce the statute. While appellees’ appeal from this disposition was pending before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, the Department of Justice under a new administration announced that it would defend the statute. The Court of Appeals then remanded the case to the District Court; the District Court permitted the Senate counsel to withdraw from the litigation, and, finding that a concrete controversy was now presented, vacated its earlier order of dismissal. While the suit was pending before the District Court, Congress, as already mentioned, see n. 7, supra, amended § 399 by confining the ban on editorializing to noncommercial stations that receive Corporation grants and by separately prohibiting all noncommercial stations from making political endorsements, irrespective of whether they receive federal funds. Subsequently, appellees amended their complaint to reflect this change, challenging only the ban on editorializing. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees, holding that § 399’s ban on editorializing violated the First Amendment. 547 F. Supp. 379 (1982). The court rejected the Federal Communication Commission’s contention that “§ 399 serves a compelling government interest in ensuring that funded noncommercial broadcasters do not become propaganda organs for the government.” Id., at 384-385. Noting the diverse sources of funding for noncommercial stations, the protections built into the Public Broadcasting Act to ensure that noncommercial broadcasters remain free of governmental influence, and the requirements of the FCC’s fairness doctrine which are designed to guard against one-sided presentation of controversial issues, the District Court concluded that the asserted fear of Government control was not sufficiently compelling to warrant § 399’s restriction on speech. Id., at 386. The court also rejected the contention that the restriction on editorializing as necessary to ensure that Government funding of noncommercial broadcast stations does not interfere with the balanced presentation of opinion on those stations. Id., at 387. The FCC appealed from the District Court judgment directly to this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1252. We postponed consideration of the question of our jurisdiction to the merits, 460 U. S. 1010 (1983), and we now affirm. II We begin by considering the appropriate standard of review. The District Court acknowledged that our decisions have generally applied a different First Amendment standard for broadcast regulation than in other areas, but after finding that no special characteristic of the broadcast media justified application of a less stringent standard in this case, it held that §399 could survive constitutional scrutiny only if it served a “compelling” governmental interest. 547 F. Supp., at 384. Claiming that the court drew the wrong lessons from our prior decisions concerning broadcast regulation, the Government contends that a less demanding standard is required. It argues that Congress may, consistently with the First Amendment, exercise broad power to regulate broadcast speech because the medium of broadcasting is subject to the “special characteristic” of spectrum scarcity — a characteristic not shared by other media — which calls for more exacting regulation. This power, in the Government’s view, includes authority to restrict the ability of all broadcasters, both commercial and noncommercial, to editorialize. Brief for Appellant 31. Moreover, given the unique role of noncommercial broadcasting as a source of “programming excellence and diversity that the commercial sector could not or would not produce,” id., at 33, Congress was entitled to impose special restrictions such as § 399 upon these stations. The Government concludes by urging that §399 is an appropriate and essential means of furthering “important” governmental interests, id., at 34, 35, 39, which leaves open the possibility that a wide variety of views on matters of public importance can be expressed through the medium of noncommercial educational broadcasting. At first glance, of course, it would appear that the District Court applied the correct standard. Section 399 plainly operates to restrict the expression of editorial opinion on matters of public importance, and, as we have repeatedly explained, communication of this kind is entitled to the most exacting degree of First Amendment protection. E. g., Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U. S. 575, 585 (1983); First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 776-777 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 14 (1976); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 101-102 (1940). Were a similar ban on editorializing applied to newspapers and magazines, we would not hesitate to strike it down as violative of the First Amendment. E. g., Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214 (1966). But, as the Government correctly notes, because broadcast regulation involves unique considerations, our cases have not followed precisely the same approach that we have applied to other media and have never gone so far as to demand that such regulations serve “compelling” governmental interests. At the same time, we think the Government’s argument loses sight of concerns that are important in this area and thus misapprehends the essential meaning of our prior decisions concerning the reach of Congress’ authority to regulate broadcast communication. The fundamental principles that guide our evaluation of broadcast regulation are by now well established. First, we have long recognized that Congress, acting pursuant to the Commerce Clause, has power to regulate the use of this scarce and valuable national resource. The distinctive feature of Congress’ efforts in this area has been to ensure through the regulatory oversight of the FCC that only those who satisfy the “public interest, convenience, and necessity” are granted a license to use radio and television broadcast frequencies. 47 U. S. C. § 309(a). Second, Congress may, in the exercise of this power, seek to assure that the public receives through this medium a balanced presentation of information on issues of public importance that otherwise might not be addressed if control of the medium were left entirely in the hands of those who own and operate broadcasting stations. Although such governmental regulation has never been allowed with respect to the print media, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974), we have recognized that “differences in the characteristics of new media justify differences in the First Amendment standards applied to them.” Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 386 (1969). The fundamental distinguishing characteristic of the new medium of broadcasting that, in our view, has required some adjustment in First Amendment analysis is that “[broadcast frequencies are a scarce resource [that] must be portioned out among applicants.” Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 101 (1973). Thus, our cases have taught that, given spectrum scarcity, those who are granted a license to broadcast must serve in a sense as fiduciaries for the public by presenting “those views and voices which are representative of [their] community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.” Red Lion, supra, at 389. As we observed in that case, because “[i]t is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail,... the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences [through the medium of broadcasting] is crucial here [and it] may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” 395 U. S., at 390. Finally, although the Government’s interest in ensuring balanced coverage of public issues is plainly both important and substantial, we have, at the same time, made clear that broadcasters are engaged in a vital and independent form of communicative activity. As a result, the First Amendment must inform and give shape to the manner in which Congress exercises its regulatory power in this area. Unlike common carriers, broadcasters are “entitled under the First Amendment to exercise ‘the widest journalistic freedom consistent with their public [duties].”’ CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 U. S. 367, 395 (1981) (quoting Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, supra, at 110). See also FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U. S. 689, 703 (1979). Indeed, if the public’s interest in receiving a balanced presentation of views is to be fully served, we must necessarily rely in large part upon the editorial initiative and judgment of the broadcasters who bear the public trust. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, supra, at 124-127. Our prior cases illustrate these principles. In Red Lion, for example, we upheld the FCC’s “fairness doctrine” — which requires broadcasters to provide adequate coverage of public issues and to ensure that this coverage fairly and accurately reflects the opposing views — because the doctrine advanced the substantial governmental interest in ensuring balanced presentations of views in this limited medium and yet posed no threat that a “broadcaster [would be denied permission] to carry a particular program or to publish his own views.” 395 U. S., at 396. Similarly, in CBS, Inc. v. FCC, supra, the Court upheld the right of access for federal candidates imposed by § 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act both because that provision “makes a significant contribution to freedom of expression by enhancing the ability of candidates to present, and the public to receive, information necessary for the effective operation of the democratic process,” id., at 396, and because it defined a sufficiently “limited right of ‘reasonable’ access” so that “the discretion of broadcasters to present their views on any issue or to carry any particular type of programming” was not impaired. Id., at 396-397 (emphasis in original). Finally, in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, supra, the Court affirmed the FCC’s refusal to require broadcast licensees to accept all paid political advertisements. Although it was argued that such a requirement would serve the public’s First Amendment interest in receiving additional views on public issues, the Court rejected this approach, finding that such a requirement would tend to transform broadcasters into common carriers and would intrude unnecessarily upon the editorial discretion of broadcasters. Id., at 123-125. The FCC’s ruling, therefore, helped to advance the important purposes of the Communications Act, grounded in the First Amendment, of preserving the right of broadcasters to exercise “the widest journalistic freedom consistent with [their] public obligations,” and of guarding against “the risk of an enlargement of Government control over the content of broadcast discussion of public issues.” Id., at 110, 126. Thus, although the broadcasting industry plainly operates under restraints not imposed upon other media, the thrust of these restrictions has generally been to secure the public’s First Amendment interest in receiving a balanced presentation of views on diverse matters of public concern. As a result of these restrictions, of course, the absolute freedom to advocate one’s own positions without also presenting opposing viewpoints — a freedom enjoyed, for example, by newspaper publishers and soapbox orators — is denied to broadcasters. But, as our cases attest, these restrictions have been upheld only when we were satisfied that the restriction is narrowly tailored to further a substantial governmental interest, such as ensuring adequate and balanced coverage of public issues, e. g., Red Lion, 395 U. S., at 377. See also CBS, Inc. v. FCC, supra, at 396-397; Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S., at 110-111; Red Lion, supra, at 396. Making that judgment requires a critical examination of the interests of the public and broadcasters in light of the particular circumstances of each case. E. g., FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978). Ill We turn now to consider whether the restraint imposed by §399 satisfies the requirements established by our prior cases for permissible broadcast regulation. Before assessing the Government’s proffered justifications for the statute, however, two central features of the ban against editorializing must be examined, since they help to illuminate the importance of the First Amendment interests at stake in this case. A First, the restriction imposed by §399 is specifically directed at a form of speech — namely, the expression of editorial opinion — that lies at the heart of First Amendment protection. In construing the reach of the statute, the FCC has explained that “although the use of noncommercial educational broadcast facilities by licensees, their management or those speaking on their behalf for the propagation of the licensee’s own views on public issues is therefore not to be permitted, such prohibition should not be construed to inhibit any other presentations on controversial issues of public importance.” Accuracy in Media, Inc., 45 F. C. C. 2d 297, 302 (1973) (emphasis added). The Commission’s interpretation of § 399 simply highlights the fact that what the statute forecloses is the expression of editorial opinion on “controversial issues of public importance.” As we recently reiterated in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886 (1982), “expression on public issues ‘has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.’ ” Id., at 913 (quoting Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 467 (1980)). And we have emphasized: “The freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the Constitution embraces at the least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment.... Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.” Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S., at 101-102. The editorial has traditionally played precisely this role by informing and arousing the public, and by criticizing and cajoling those who hold government office in order to help launch new solutions to the problems of the time. Preserving the free expression of editorial opinion, therefore, is part and parcel of “a profound national commitment... that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). As we recognized in Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214 (1966), the special place of the editorial in our First Amendment jurisprudence simply reflects the fact that the press, of which the broadcasting industry is indisputably a part, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 166 (1948), carries out a historic, dual responsibility in our society of reporting information and of bringing critical judgment to bear on public affairs. Indeed, the pivotal importance of editorializing as a means of satisfying the public’s interest in receiving a wide variety of ideas and views through the medium of broadcasting has long been recognized by the FCC; the Commission has for the past 35 years actively encouraged commercial broadcast licensees to include editorials on public affairs in their programming. Because §399 appears to restrict precisely that form of speech which the Framers of the Bill of Rights were most anxious to protect — speech that is “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth” — we must be especially careful in weighing the interests that are asserted in support of this restriction and in assessing the precision with which the ban is crafted. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Second, the scope of § 399’s ban is defined solely on the basis of the content of the suppressed speech. A wide variety of noneditorial speech “by licensees, their management or those speaking on their behalf,” Accuracy in Media, Inc., 45 F. C. C. 2d, at 302, is plainly not prohibited by § 399. Examples of such permissible forms of speech include daily announcements of the station’s program schedule or over-the-air appeals for contributions from listeners. Consequently, in order to determine whether a particular statement by station management constitutes an “editorial” proscribed by § 399, enforcement authorities must necessarily examine the content of the message that is conveyed to determine whether the views expressed concern “controversial issues of public importance.” Ibid. As Justice Stevens observed in Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 530 (1980), however: “A regulation of speech that is motivated by nothing more than a desire to curtail expression of a particular point of view on controversial issues of general interest is the purest example of a law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ A regulation that denies one group of persons the right to address a selected audience on ‘controversial issues of public policy’ is plainly such a regulation.” Id., at 546 (opinion concurring in judgment); accord, id., at 537-540 (majority opinion). Section 399 is just such a regulation, for it singles out noncommercial broadcasters and denies them the right to address their chosen audience on matters of public importance. Thus, in enacting §399 Congress appears to have sought, in much the same way that the New York Public Service Commission had attempted through the regulation of utility company bill inserts struck down in Consolidated Edison, to limit discussion of controversial topics and thus to shape the agenda for public debate. Since, as we observed in Consolidated Edison, “[t]he First Amendment’s hostility to content-based regulation extends not only to restrictions on particular viewpoints, but also to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic,” id., at 537, we must be particularly wary in assessing § 399 to determine whether it reflects an impermissible attempt “to allow a government [to] control... the search for political truth.” Id., at 538. B In seeking to defend the prohibition on editorializing imposed by § 399, the Government urges that the statute was aimed at preventing two principal threats to the overall success of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. According to this argument, the ban was necessary, first, to protect noncommercial educational broadcasting stations from being coerced, as a result of federal financing, into becoming vehicles for Government propagandizing or the objects of governmental influence; and, second, to keep these stations from becoming convenient targets for capture by private interest groups wishing to express their own partisan viewpoints. By seeking to safeguard the public’s right to a balanced presentation of public issues through the prevention of either governmental or private bias, these objectives are, of course, broadly consistent with the goals identified in our earlier broadcast regulation cases. But, in sharp contrast to the restrictions upheld in Red Lion or in CBS, Inc. v. FCC, which left room for editorial discretion and simply required broadcast editors to grant others access to the microphone, § 399 directly prohibits the broadcaster from speaking out on public issues even in a balanced and fair manner. The Government insists, however, that the hazards posed in the “special” circumstances of noncommercial educational broadcasting are so great that § 399 is an indispensable means of preserving the public’s First Amendment interests. We disagree. (1) When Congress first decided to provide financial support for the expansion and development of noncommercial educational stations, all concerned agreed that this step posed some risk that these traditionally independent stations might be pressured into becoming forums devoted solely to programming and views that were acceptable to the Federal Government. That Congress was alert to these dangers cannot be doubted. It sought through the Public Broadcasting Act to fashion a system that would provide local stations with sufficient funds to foster their growth and development while preserving their tradition of autonomy and community-orientation. A cardinal objective of the Act was the establishment of a private corporation that would “facilitate the development of educational radio and television broadcasting and... afford maximum protection to such broadcasting from extraneous interference and control.” 47 U. S. C. § 396(a)(6) (1976 ed.). The intended role of §399 in achieving these purposes, however, is not as clear. The provision finds no antecedent in the Carnegie report, which generally provided the model for most other aspects of the Act. It was not part of the administration’s original legislative proposal. And it was not included in the original version of the Act passed by the Senate. The provision found its way into the Act only as a result of an amendment in the House. Indeed, it appears that, as the House Committee Report frankly admits, § 399 was added not because Congress thought it was essential to preserving the autonomy and vitality of local stations, but rather “[o]ut of an abundance of caution.” H. R. Rep. No. 572, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 20 (1967). More importantly, an examination of both the overall legislative scheme established by the 1967 Act and the character of public broadcasting demonstrates that the interest asserted by the Government is not substantially advanced by § 399. First, to the extent that federal financial support creates a risk that stations will lose their independence through the bewitching power of governmental largesse, the elaborate structure established by the Public Broadcasting Act already operates to insulate local stations from governmental interference. Congress not only mandated that the new Corporation for Public Broadcasting would have a private, bipartisan structure, see §§ 396(c) — (f), but also imposed a variety of important limitations on its powers. The Corporation was prohibited from owning or operating any station, § 396(g)(3), it was required to adhere strictly to a standard of “objectivity and balance” in disbursing federal funds to local stations, § 396(g)(1)(A), and it was prohibited from contributing to or otherwise supporting any candidate for office, § 396(f)(3). The Act also established a second layer of protections which serve to protect the stations from governmental coercion and interference. Thus, in addition to requiring the Corporation to operate so as to “assure the maximum freedom [of local stations] from interference with or control of program content or other activities,” § 396(g)(1)(D), the Act expressly forbids “any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over the Corporation or any of its grantees or contractors...,” § 398(a) (1976 ed.). Subsequent amendments to the Act have confirmed Congress’ commitment to the principle that because local stations are the “bedrock of the system,” their independence from governmental interference and control must be fully guaranteed. These amendments have provided long-term appropriations authority for public broadcasting, rather than allowing funding to depend upon yearly appropriations, see § 396(k)(l)(C), as amended, Pub. L. 97-35, Title XII, § 1227, 95 Stat. 727; have strictly defined the percentage of appropriated funds that must be disbursed by the Corporation to local stations, § 396(k)(3) (A)-(B); and have defined objective criteria under which local television and radio stations receive basic grants from the Corporation to be used at the discretion of the station. §§396(k)(6)(A)-(B), 396(k)(7). The principal thrust of the amendments, therefore, has been to assure long-term appropriations for the Corporation and, more importantly, to insist that it pass specified portions of these funds directly through to local stations to give them greater autonomy in defining the uses to which those funds should be put. Thus, in sharp contrast to § 399, the unifying theme of these various statutory provisions is that they substantially reduce the risk of governmental interference with the editorial judgments of local stations without restricting those stations’ ability to speak on matters of public concern. Even if these statutory protections were thought insufficient to the task, however, suppressing the particular category of speech restricted by § 399 is simply not likely, given the character of the public broadcasting system, to reduce substantially the risk that the Federal Government will seek to influence or put pressure on local stations. An underlying supposition of the Government’s argument in this regard is that individual noncommercial stations are likely to speak so forcefully on particular issues that Congress, the ultimate source of the stations’ federal funding, will be tempted to retaliate against these individual stations by restricting appropriations for all of public broadcasting. But, as the District Court recognized, the character of public broadcasting suggests that such a risk is speculative at best. There are literally hundreds of public radio and television stations in communities scattered throughout the United States and its territories, see CPB, 1983-84 Public Broadcasting Directory 20-50, 66-86 (Sept. 1983). Given that central fact, it seems reasonable to infer that the editorial voices of these stations will prove to be as distinctive, varied, and idiosyncratic as the various communities they represent. More importantly, the editorial focus of any particular station can' fairly be expected to focus largely on issues affecting only its community. Accordingly, absent some showing by the Government to the contrary, the risk that local editorializing will place all of public broadcasting in jeopardy is not sufficiently pressing to warrant § 399’s broad suppression of speech. Indeed, what is far more likely than local station editorials to pose the kinds of dangers hypothesized by the Government are the wide variety of programs addressing controversial issues produced, often with substantial CPB funding, for national distribution to local stations. Such programs truly have the potential to reach a large audience and, because of the critical commentary they contain, to have the kind of genuine national impact that might trigger a congressional response or kindle governmental resentment. The ban imposed by § 399, however, is plainly not directed at the potentially controversial content of such programs; it is, instead, leveled solely at the expression of editorial opinion by local station management, a form of expression that is far more likely to be aimed at a smaller local audience, to have less national impact, and to be confined to local issues. In contrast, the Act imposes no substantive restrictions, other than normal requirements of balance and fairness, on those who produce nationally distributed programs. Indeed, the Act is designed in part to encourage and sponsor the production of such programs and to allow each station to decide for itself whether to accept such programs for local broadcast. Furthermore, the manifest imprecision of the ban imposed by §399 reveals that its proscription is not sufficiently tailored to the harms it seeks to prevent to justify its substantial interference with broadcasters’ speech. Section 399 includes within its grip a potentially infinite variety of speech, most of which would not be related in any way to governmental affairs, political candidacies, or elections. Indeed, the breadth of editorial commentary is as wide as human imagination permits. But the Government never explains how, say, an editorial by local station management urging improvements in a town’s parks or museums will so infuriate Congress or other federal officials that the future of public broadcasting will be imperiled unless such editorials are suppressed. Nor is it explained how the suppression of editorials alone serves to reduce the risk of governmental retaliation and interference when it is clear that station management is fully able to broadcast controversial views so long as such views are not labeled as its own. See infra, at 396, and n. 25. The Government appears to recognize these flaws in § 399, because it focuses instead on the suggestion that the source of governmental influence may well be state and local governments, many of which have established public broadcasting commissions that own and operate local noncommercial educational stations. The ban on editorializing is all the more necessary with respect to these stations, the argument runs, because the management of such stations will be especially likely to broadcast only editorials that are favorable to the state or local authorities that hold the purse strings. The Government’s argument, however, proves too much. First, §399’s ban applies to the many private noncommercial community organizations that own and operate stations that are not controlled in any way by state or local government. Second, the legislative history of the Public Broadcasting Act clearly indicates that Congress was concerned with “assuring] complete freedom from any Federal Government influence.” The Public Television Act of 1967: Hearings on S. 1160 before the Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1967) (remarks of Sen. Pastore) (emphasis added). Consistently with this concern, Congress refused to create any federally owned stations and it expressly forbade the CPB to own or operate any television or radio stations, § 396(g)(3). By contrast, although Congress was clearly aware in 1967 that many noncommercial educational stations were owned by state and local governments, it did not hesitate to extend federal assistance to such stations, it imposed no special requirements to restrict state or local control over these stations, and, indeed, it ensured through the structure of the Act that these stations would be as insulated from federal interference as the wholly private stations. Finally, although the Government certainly has a substantial interest in ensuring that the audiences of noncommercial stations will not be led to think that the broadcaster’s editorials reflect the official view of the Government, this interest can be fully satisfied by less restrictive means that are readily available. To address this important concern, Congress could simply require public broadcasting stations to broadcast a disclaimer every time they editorialize which would state that the editorial represents only the view of the station’s management and does not in any way represent the views of the Federal Government or any of the station’s other sources of funding. Such a disclaimer — similar to those often used in commercial and noncommercial programming of a controversial nature — would effectively and directly communicate to the audience that the editorial reflected only the views of the station rather than those of the Government. Furthermore, such disclaimers would have the virtue of clarifying the responses that might be made under the fairness doctrine by opponents of the station’s position, since those opponents would know with certainty that they were responding only to the station’s views and not in any sense to the Government’s Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

C

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. Virginia Hector, a native and citizen of Dominica, West Indies, entered the United States in April 1975 as a nonimmi-grant visitor for pleasure. She has remained in this country illegally since April 30, 1975, when her authorization to stay expired. The youngest of her four children, a 10-year-old boy, resides with her here; the other three children live with their grandparents in Dominica. In 1983, two of Hector’s nieces, United States citizens aged 10 and 11, came to live with her in order to attend school in what their parents perceived to be a superior educational system. The nieces’ parents continue to reside in Dominica. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) instituted deportation proceedings against Hector in July 1983. She conceded deportability, but applied for suspension of deportation pursuant to § 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 66 Stat. 214, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1). That section authorizes the Attorney General, in his discretion, to suspend deportation of an illegal alien, and to adjust the alien’s status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if the deportable alien “has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the date of . . . application, and proves that during all of such period he was and is a person of good moral character; and is a person whose deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, result in extreme hardship to the alien or to his spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) found that Hector satisfied the first two statutory elements — continuous physical residence and good moral character — but that she could not demonstrate extreme hardship to herself, or to her “spouse, parent, or child.” With respect to her nieces, the Board determined that, as a factual matter, Hector’s separation from them would not constitute extreme hardship to herself; as a legal matter, the Board concluded that a niece is not a “child” within the meaning of § 244(a)(1). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted Hector’s petition for review and remanded the case to the Board. 782 F. 2d 1028 (1986). The court held that the Board had erred in not giving sufficient consideration to whether Hector’s relationship with her nieces was the functional equivalent of a parent-child relationship. The court thus instructed the Board to ascertain whether there was a parental-type relationship, and, if so, to determine whether Hector’s nieces would experience extreme hardship as a result of her deportation. In so holding, the court relied on its earlier decision in Tovar v. INS, 612 F. 2d 794 (1980), which held that the term “child” as used in § 244(a)(1) includes individuals who do not fit within the statutory definition of “child” set out in § 101(b)(1), 8 U. S. C. § 1101(b)(1), if their relationship with the deportable alien closely resembles that of a parent and child. Because we find the plain language of the statute so compelling, we reverse, and hold that the Board is not required under § 244(a)(1) to consider the hardship to a third party other than a spouse, parent, or child, as defined by the Act. Congress has specifically identified the relatives whose hardship is to be considered, and then set forth unusually detailed and unyielding provisions defining each class of included relatives. The statutory definition of the term “child” is particularly exhaustive. Hector has never claimed, and the Court of Appeals did not hold, that the two nieces qualify under that statutory definition. As we have explained with reference to the technical definition of “child” contained within this statute: “With respect to each of these legislative policy distinctions, it could be argued that the line should have been drawn at a different point and that the statutory definitions deny preferential status to [some] who share strong family ties. . . . But it is clear from our cases . . . that these are policy questions entrusted exclusively to the political branches of our Government, and we have no judicial authority to substitute our political judgment for that of the Congress.” Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S. 787, 798 (1977). Thus, even if Hector’s relationship with her nieces closely resembles a parent-child relationship, we are constrained to hold that Congress, through the plain language of the statute, precluded this functional approach to defining the term “child.” Cf. INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U. S. 183, 194 (1984) (refusing to ignore “the clear congressional mandate and the plain meaning of the statute” where it was clear that “Congress considered the harsh consequences of its actions”). Congress has shown its willingness to 'redefine the term “child” on a number of occasions, but it has not included nieces in that definition or authorized us to adopt a functional definition. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered. Justice Brennan would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument. The Board found that “[t]he emotional hardship to the respondent due to difficulties encountered by her nieces as a result of her deportation also does not constitute extreme hardship even when combined with the other factors in her case.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a. Cf. Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F. 2d 401, 403 (CA9 1983); Antoine-Dorcelli v. INS, 703 F. 2d 19, 22 (CA1 1983). Both the Immigration Judge and the Board had also held, in the alternative, that Hector’s relationship with her nieces was not akin to a mother and daughter relationship, and that, in any event, the nieces would not experience extreme hardship as a result of Hector’s deportation. The Court of Appeals held, however, that the Board had foreclosed presentation of evidence on these issues, and had not meaningfully addressed each relevant factor. App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a. Judge Garth dissented, concluding that the Board has adequately considered Hector’s relationship with her nieces and the hardship issue. Id., at 5a, n. 1. The Courts of Appeals have reached varying conclusions on whether hardship to an alien’s relative or loved one who does not qualify under the statute’s technical definitions as a spouse, parent, or child must be independently considered in assessing extreme hardship under § 244(a)(1). As indicated, the Third Circuit has held that the Board must look at the hardship that some third parties would experience, even if they do not qualify under the definitional section of the Act. See Tovar v. INS, 612 F. 2d 794, 797-798 (1980). A number of other Circuits have rejected this flexible approach. See, e. g., Zamora-Garcia v. United States Dept. of Justice INS, 737 F. 2d 488 (CA5 1984); Contreras-Buenfil, supra, at 403. The term “parent” is defined in 8 U. S. C. § 1101(b)(2); the term “spouse” is defined in § 1101(a)(35). The definitional section provides: “(b) As used in in subchapters I and II of this chapter— “(1) The term “child” means an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age who is — “(A) a legitimate child; “(B) a stepchild, whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the child had not reached the age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred; “(C) a child legitimated under the law of the child’s residence or domicile, or under the law of the father’s residence or domicile, whether in or outside the United States, if such legitimation takes place before the child reaches the age of eighteen years and the child is in the legal custody of the legitimating parent or parents at the time of such legitimation; “(D) an illegitimate child by, through whom, or on whose behalf a status, privilege, or benefit is sought by virtue of the relationship of the child to its natural mother; “(E) a child adopted while under the age of sixteen years if the child has thereafter been in the legal custody of, and has resided with, the adopting parent or parents for at least two years: Provided, That no natural parent of any such adopted child shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this chapter; or “(F) a child, under the age of sixteen at the time a petition is filed in his behalf to accord a classification as an immediate relative under section 1151(b) of this title, who is an orphan because of the death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents, or for whom the the sole or surviving parent is incapable of providing the proper care and has in writing irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption; who has been adopted abroad by a United States citizen and spouse jointly, or by an unmarried United States citizen at least twenty-five years of age, who personally saw and observed the child prior to or during the adoption proceedings; or who is coming to the United States for adoption by a United States citizen and spouse jointly, or by an unmarried United States citizen at least twenty-five years of age, who have or has complied with the preadoption requirements, if any, of the child’s proposed residence: Provided, That the Attorney General is satisfied that proper care will be furnished the child if admitted to the United States: Provided further, That no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any such adopted child shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this chapter.” § 1101(b)(1). The suspension of deportation provision, § 1254(a), is part of subehapter II; this definition of “child” therefore applies. The limiting nature of the plain language is corroborated by the legislative history of both the suspension of deportation provision and the definitional section of the Act. With respect to suspension of deportation, the Senate rejected a draft of the bill that focused on the hardship to the “immediate family.” See S. 716, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951). In a prepared analysis of S. 716, the INS expressed concern about this undefined term that the INS considered “obscure, uncertain, and difficult, if not impossible, to administer” since the language could “conceivably be claimed to include any relative of the alien, by blood or marriage, who might be living with him in his household.” 4 INS, Analysis of S. 716, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 244-2 and 244-3 (1951) (emphasis in original). Instead, the INS asked Congress to list the “particular relatives who are intended to be described.” Id., at 244-3. The bill that was eventually passed contained the “parent, spouse, or child” language that is now in effect. The history of the definitional section similarly demonstrates that Congress has been actively engaged in delineating just how broad it wishes the definition of “child” to be. As originally enacted, the statute defined a “child” as an unmarried legitimate or legitimated child or stepchild under 21 years of age. See Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S., at 797. Congress has since repeatedly fine-tuned the definition of “child.” There have been no less than four separate amendments, each adding to or refining the definition. See Act of Sept. 11,1957, Pub L. 85-316, §2, 71 Stat. 639; Act of Sept. 26, 1961, Pub. L. 87-301, §§ 1-4, 75 Stat. 650-651; Act of Oct. 3,1965, Pub. L. 89-236, § 8(e), 79 Stat. 917; Act of Dec. 29, 1981, Pub. L. 97-116, 95 Stat. 1611. In light of this history of close congressional attention to this specific issue, we are especially bound to pay heed to the plain mandate of the words Congress has chosen. See n. 6, supra. Similarly, Congress has shown that it is willing to correct inequities that might result in our applying the plain language of the suspension of deportation provision. In the recently enacted Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, Congress explicitly amended the Act to “overrule INS v. Phinpathya, [464 U. S. 183] (1984), which held that any absence, however brief, breaks the continuity of physical presence.” H. R. Rep. No. 99-682, pt. 1, p. 124 (1986). Our decision, of course, does not affect the possibility that Hector may be entitled to relief under the amnesty provisions of the newly enacted Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, supra. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Reed delivered the opinion of the'Court. Respondent Carignan was convicted in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska of first degree murder in attempting to. perpetrate a rape. Alaska Compiled Laws Annotated, 1949, § 65-4-1. He was sentenced to death. The conviction was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Carignan v. United States, 185 F. 2d 954. The sole ground of the reversal was the admission of a confession obtained in a manner held to be contrary to the principles expounded by this Court in McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, and Upshaw v. United States, 335 U. S. 410. The case is here on writ of certiorari granted on the petition of the Government. 341 U. S. 934. The question presented by the petition was whether it was error to admit at the trial respondent’s confession of the murder. The confession was held inadmissible because given before arrest, indictment, or commitment on the murder charge. The confession was given after respondent had been duly committed to jail, Rule 5, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, under a warrant which charged that he had, at a time six weeks after the murder, perpetrated an assault with intent to rape. Respondent advances three additional issues to support the reversal of the conviction besides the above point on detention. First. Error, it is argued, was committed by the trial court in admitting the confession because it was obtained by secret interrogation and psychological pressure by police officers. Second. Further error, it is said, followed from a failure of the trial court to submit to the jury, as a question of fact, the voluntary or involuntary character of the confession. Third. Error occurred when the trial court refused to permit respondent to take the stand and testify in the absence of the jury to. facts believed to indicate the involuntary character of the confession. The United States concedes in regard to the third issue that the better practice, when admissibility of a confession is in issue, is for the judge to hear a defendant’s offered testimony in the absence of the jury as to the' surrounding facts. Therefore, the Government makes no objection to the reversal of the conviction on that ground. We think it clear that this defendant was entitled to such an opportunity to testify. An involuntary confession is inadmissible. Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, 623. Such evidence would be pertinent to the inquiry on admissibility and might be material and determinative. The refusal to admit the testimony was reversible error. As this error makes necessary a new examination into the voluntary character of the confession, there is no need now to pursue on this record the first and second issues brought forward by respondent, except to say that the facts in this record surrounding the giving of the confession do not necessarily establish coercion, physical or psychological, so as to render the confession inadmissible.. The evidence on the new trial will determine the necessity for or character of instructions to the jury on the weight to be accorded the confession, if it is admitted in eviaénce. Cf. United States v. Lustig, 163 F. 2d 85, 88-89. McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, 338, note 5. So long as no coercive methods by threats or inducements to confess are employed, constitutional requirements do not forbid police examination in private of those in lawful custody or the use as evidence of information voluntarily given. The following summary of the uncontradicted facts discloses the circumstances leading to the confession. Respondent Carigrian was detained by the Anchorage police in connection with the subsequent assault case from about 11 a. m., Friday, September 16, 1949. He was identified in a .line-up by the victim, and confessed to the assault. Around 4 p. m. on the same day he was arrested and duly committed for the assault. His trial on the assault charge took place subsequent to this confession. During the time between his detention and commitment for the assault, respondent was questioned by the police about the murder which was the basis of the conviction now under review. A witness who had seen the man involved in the murder and his victim together at the scene of the crime was brought to the police station during this time. From a line-up he picked out respondent Carignan as one appearing to be th^ person that he saw on that occasion. Carignan did not give any information about his activities on the day the murder was committed. The night of Friday, September 16, Carignan was lodged in the city jail. The next morning, Saturday, Herring, the United States Marshal, undertook to question respondent in regard to the earlier crime of murder. No evidence appears of violence, of persistent questioning, or of deprivation of food or rest. Respondent was told that he did not have to make a statement, and that no promises could be made to him one way or another. There were pictures of Christ and of various saints on the walls of the office in which the conversation occurred. The Marshal evidently suggested to him that his Maker might think more of him if he told the truth about the crime. The evidence also shows that the Marshal told Carignan that he, the Marshal, had been in an orphan asylum as a youth, as had Carignan. On respondent’s request a priest was called. The accused talked to the priest alone for some time and later told the Marshal he would give him a statement. After his return to the jail about .5 p. m. on Saturday, he was left undisturbed. On Sunday he was not questioned, and on Monday morning the Marshal again took respondent out of jail and into the grand jury room in the courthouse. Upon the Marshal’s inquiry if he had any statement to make, respondent answered that he had but that he wished to see the priest first. After talking to the priest again for some time, he gave the Marshal a written statement. The statement was noncommittal as to the murder charge. Two other police officers who were with the Marshal and Carignan then suggested that perhaps Carignan would rather talk to the Marshal alone. They withdrew. The Marshal told Carignan, in response to an inquiry, that he had been around that court for twenty-seven years and that during that time “there had been no hanging, what would happen to him I couldn’t promise him or anyone else.” There was also some talk about McNeil Island, the location of the nearest federal penitentiary, and the Marshal said, in reply to a question of Carignan’s, that he, the Marshal, “had known men that had been there and learned a trade and that made something of their lives.” After a few moments’ further conversation Carignan completed the written statement that was later put in evidence. It then admitted the killing. Whether involuntary confessions are excluded from federal criminal trials on the ground of a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination, or from a rule that forced confessions are untrustworthy, these uncontradicted facts do not bar this confession as a matter of law. The constitutional test for admission of an accused’s confession in federal courts for a long time has been whether it was made “freely, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement of any sort.” However, this Court in recent years has enforced a judicially created federal rule of evidence, to which the label “McNabb rule” has been applied, that confessions shall be excluded if obtained during “illegal detention due to failure promptly to carry a prisoner before a committing magistrate, whether or not the ‘confession is the result of torture, physical or psychological.’ ” Violation of the McNabb rule, in the view of the Court of Appeals, not the assertédly involuntary character of the confession:, caused that court to reverse the conviction. Our problem in this review is whether the McNabb rule covers this confession or,, if not, whether that rule of evidence should now be judicially extended to these facts. By United States v. Mitchell, 322 U. S. 65, 70-71, this Court decided that the McNabb rule was not intended as a penalty or sanction for violation of R. S. D. C. § 397, a commitment statute. The same conclusion applies to Rule 5, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This rule applies to Alaska. Rule 54 (a). See Upshaw v. United States, 335 U. S. 410, 411. Mitchell’s confession, made before commitment, but also before his detention had been illegally prolonged, was admitted as evidence because it was not elicited “through illegality.” The admission, therefore, was not “use by the Government of the fruits of wrongdoing by its officers.” Upshaw v. United States, supra, 413. The McNabb rule has been stated thus: “. . . that a confession is inadmissible if made during illegal detention due to failure promptly to carry a prisoner before a committing magistrate, whether or not the ‘confession is the result of torture, physical or psychological ....’” Upshaw v. United States, 335 U. S. at 413. One cannot say that this record justifies characterization of this confession as given during unlawful detention. Rule 5, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, does not apply in terms, because Carignan was neither arrested for nor charged with the murder when the confession to that crime was made. He had been arrested and committed for the assault perpetrated six weeks after the murder. His detention, therefore, was legal. Further, before the confession, there was basis for no more than a strong suspicion that Carignan was the murderer. That suspicion arose from a doubtful identification by a person who had in passing seen a man resembling the respondent at the scene of the murder and from a similarity of circumstances between the murder and the assault. The police coixld hardly be expected to make a murder charge on such uncertainties without further inquiry and investigation. This case falls outside the reason for the rule, L e., to abolish unlawful detention. Such detention was thought to give opportunity for improper pressure by police before the accused had the benefit of the statement by the commissioner. Rule 5 (b), supra, note 8. Upshaw v. United States, supra, 414; McNabb v. United States, supra, 344. Carignan had received that information at his commitment for the assault. Another extension of the McNabb rule would accentuate the shift of the inquiry as to admissibility from the voluntariness of the confession to the legality of the arrest and restraint. Complete protection is afforded the civil rights of an accused who makes an involuntary confession or statement when such confession must be excluded by the judge or disregarded by the jury upon proof that it is not voluntary. Such a just and merciful rule preserves the rights of accused and society alike. It does npt sacrifice justice to sentimentality. An extension of a mechanical rule based on the time of a confession would not be a helpful addition to the rules of criminal evidence. We decline to extend the McNabb fixed ru.le of exclusion to statements to police or wardens concerning other crimes while prisoners are legally in detention on criminal charges. The decision of the Court of Appeals is modified and, as modified by this opinion, the judgment is Affirmed. Mr. Justice Minton took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Since these issues were in controversy below,' they are available to respondent as grounds for affirmance of the Court of Appeals. Langnes v. Green, 282 U. S. 531, 535, 538; United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 330. Ziang Sung Wan v. United States, 266 U. S. 1, 14; Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 239; McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, 346. Cf. Hardy v. United States, 186 U. S. 224, 228. Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532, 542; Powers v. United States, 223 U. S. 303, 313. Wigmore, Evidence (1940 ed.), § 822. Cf. Ziang Sung Wan v. United States, 266 U. S. 1, 14. Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, 623. Upshaw v. United States, 335 U. S. 410, 413; McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332. Carignan v. United States, 185 F. 2d 954: Healy, Circuit Judge: “What the court has to decide is whether the circumstances outlined were such as to bring the case within the spirit and intent of Rule 5 and the holding of the McNabb decision, supra, as further expounded in Upshaw v. United States, 335 U. S. 410, . . . “In the view of the writer of this opinion something approaching psychological pressure, not unmixed with deceit, com tributed to the extraction of the confession. Since the majority are of a contrary opinion this possible aspect has not been given weight in the decision to reverse.” P. 958. Bone, Circuit Judge: “However, I emphasize that my concurrence rests solely upon the fact that appellant was not arraigned prior to being interrogated by the Marshal and prior to the making of the confession. The evidence in this case convinces me that the confession was freely made and was not the product of any form of promises or inducement that would or should vitiate it.” P. 961. See also Pope, Circuit Judge, dissenting, p. 962. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: “Rule 5. Proceedings before the Commissioner. “(a) Appearance before the Commissioner. An officer making an arrest under a warrant issued upon a complaint or any person making an arrest without a warrant shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available commissioner or before any other nearby officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States. When a person arrested without a warrant is brought before a commissioner or other officer, a complaint shall be filed forthwith. “(b) Statement by the Commissioner. The commissioner shall inform the defendant of the complaint against him, of his right to retain counsel and of his right to have a preliminary examination. He shall also inform the defendant that he is not required to make a statement and that any statement made by him may be used against him. The commissioner shall allow the defendant reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall admit the defendant to bail as provided in these rules.” In the Mitchell case, defendant’s confession was given at the police station before commitment, a few minutes after two policemen had jailed him following his arrest on a charge of housebreaking and larceny. For the purpose of aiding in clearing up a series of housebreakings, Mitchell’s appearance for commitment was illegally postponed for eight days. The weakness of this evidence is shown by the record. “Q. Now, at any later time, Mr. Keith, were you called upon to identify anyone that resembled the person that you saw, the male person in the grass that night? “A. I was taken to the police station and viewed the line-up. “Q. Do you recall how many were in that line-up? “A. There was either four or five,. I don’t exactly recollect. “Q. Did you pick out some person that appeared to be the person that you saw on this particular occasion ? “A. I did. “Q. Do you see anyone in the courtroom today that resembles the party that you saw that night in question? “A. I do. “Q. Will you point him out? “A. He is right over there.” R. 120-121. “Q. Now, were you able to remember the person you saw there so that when you saw him in the courtroom today you were able to recognize him as the same person ? “A. I couldn’t positively swear that he is the same person.” R. 128. “Q. When did you next see the man whom you identified as the person you saw in the'park in the grass ? “A. In the police line-up. “Q. Did you have any difficulty recognizing him at that time? “A. Well, no. I picked him out as looking nearer like the man that I saw there than any man I have seen.” R. 130. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. CHIEF Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner Michael A. Haddle, an at-will employee, alleges that respondents conspired to have him fired from his job in retaliation for obeying a federal grand jury subpoena and to deter him from testifying at a federal criminal trial. We hold that such interference with at-will employment may give rise to a claim for damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1980, 42 U. S. C. § 1985(2). According to petitioner’s complaint, a federal grand jury indictment in March 1995 charged petitioner’s employer, Healthmaster, Inc., and respondents Jeanette Garrison and Dennis Kelly, officers of Healthmaster, with Medicare fraud. Petitioner cooperated with the federal agents in the investigation that preceded the indictment. He also appeared to testify before the grand jury pursuant to a subpoena, but did not testify due to the press of time. Petitioner was also expected to appear as a witness in the criminal trial resulting from the indictment. Although Garrison and Kelly were barred by the Bankruptcy Court from participating in the affairs of Health-master, they conspired with G. Peter Molloy, Jr., one of the remaining officers of Healthmaster, to bring about petitioner’s termination. They did this both to intimidate petitioner and to retaliate against him for his attendance at the federal-court proceedings. Petitioner sued for damages in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, asserting a federal claim under 42 U. S. C. § 1985(2) and various state-law claims. Petitioner stated two grounds for relief under §1985(2): one for conspiracy to deter him from testifying in the upcoming criminal trial and one for conspiracy to retaliate against him for attending the grand jury proceedings. As §1985 demands, he also alleged that he had been "injured in his person or property” by the acts of respondents in violation of § 1985(2) and that he was entitled to recover his damages occasioned by such injury against respondents jointly and severally. Respondents moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because petitioner conceded that he was an at-will employee, the District Court granted the motion on the authority of Morast v. Lance, 807 F. 2d 926 (1987). In Morast, the Eleventh Circuit held that an at-will employee who is dismissed pursuant to a conspiracy proscribed by §1985(2) has no cause of action. The Morast court explained: “[T]o make out a cause of action under § 1985(2) the plaintiff must have suffered an actual injury. Because Morast was an at will employee,... he had no constitutionally protected interest in continued employment. Therefore, Morast’s discharge did not constitute an actual injury under this statute.” Id., at 930. Relying on its decision in Morast, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Judgt. order reported at 132 F. 3d 46 (1997). with the The Eleventh Circuit’s rule in Morast conflicts with the holdings of the First and Ninth Circuits. See Irizarry v. Quiros, 722 F. 2d 869, 871 (CA1 1983), and Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F. 2d 898, 909-910 (CA9 1993). We therefore granted certiorari, 523 U. S. 1136 (1998), to decide whether petitioner was “injured in his property or person” when respondents induced his employer to terminate petitioner’s at-will employment as part of a conspiracy prohibited by § 1985(2). Section 1985(2), in relevant part, proscribes conspiracies to “deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified.” The statute provides that if one or more persons engaged in such a conspiracy “do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property,... the party so injured . . . may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury . . . against any one or more of the conspirators.” § 1985(3). Petitioner’s action was dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because, in the Eleventh Circuit’s view, he had not suffered an injury that could give rise to a claim for damages under § 1985(2). We must, of eourse, assume that the facts as alleged in petitioner’s complaint are true and that respondents engaged in a conspiracy prohibited by § 1985(2). Our review in this case is accordingly confined to one question: Can petitioner state a claim for damages by alleging that a conspiracy proscribed by § 1985(2) induced his employer to terminate his at-will employment? We disagree with the Eleventh Circuit’s conclusion that petitioner must suffer an injury to a “constitutionally protected property interest” to state a claim for damages under § 1985(2). Nothing in the language or purpose of the proscriptions in the first clause of § 1985(2), nor in its attendant remedial provisions, establishes such a requirement. The gist of the wrong at which § 1985(2) is directed is not deprivation of property, but intimidation or retaliation against witnesses in federal-court proceedings. The terms “injured in his person or property” define the harm that the victim may suffer as a result of the conspiracy to intimidate or retaliate. Thus, the fact that employment at will is not “property” for purposes of the Due Process Clause, see Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 345-347 (1976), does not mean that loss of at-will employment may not “injur[e] [petitioner] in his person or property” for purposes of § 1985(2). We hold that the sort of harm alleged by petitioner here — essentially third-party interference with at-will employment relationships — states a claim for relief under § 1985(2). Such harm has long been a compensable injury under tort law, and we see no reason to ignore this tradition in this case. As Thomas Cooley recognized: “One who maliciously and without justifiable cause, induces an employer to discharge an employee, by means of false statements, threats or putting in fear, or perhaps by means of malevolent advice and persuasion, is liable in an action of tort to the employee for the damages thereby sustained. And it makes no difference whether the employment was for a fixed term not yet expired or is terminable at the will of the employer A 2 Law of Torts 589-591 (3d ed. 1906) (emphasis added). This Court also recognized in Truajx v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33 (1915): “The fact that the employment is at the will of the parties, respectively, does not make it one at the will of others. The employe has manifest interest in the freedom of the employer to exercise his judgment without illegal interference or compulsion and, by the weight of authority, the unjustified interference of third persons is actionable although the employment is at will.” Id., at 38 (citing cases). The kind of interference with at-will employment relations alleged here is merely a species of the traditional torts of intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional interference with prospective contractual relations. See Restatement (Second) of Torts §766, Comment g, pp. 10-11 (1977); see also id., §766B, Comment c, at 22. This protection against third-party interference with at-will employment relations is still afforded by state law today. See W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, K. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keaton on Law of Torts § 129, pp. 995-996, and n. 83 (5th ed. 1984) (citing cases). For example, the State of Georgia, where the acts underlying the complaint in this ease took place, provides a cause of action against third parties for wrongful interference with employment relations. See Georgia Power Co. v. Busbin, 242 Ga. 612, 613, 250 S. E. 2d 442, 444 (1978) C‘[E]ven though a person’s employment contract is at will, he has a valuable contract right which may not be unlawfully interfered with by a third person”); see also Troy v. Interfinancial, Inc., 171 Ga. App. 763, 766-769, 320 S. E. 2d 872, 877-879 (1984) (directed verdict inappropriate against defendant who procured plaintiff’s termination for failure to lie at a deposition hearing). Thus, to the extent that the terms “injured in his person or property” in § 1985 refer to principles of tort law, see 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 118 (1768) (describing the universe of common-law torts as “all private wrongs, or civil injuries, which may be offered to the rights of either a man’s person or his property”), we find ample support for our holding that the harm occasioned by the conspiracy here may give rise to a claim for damages under §1985(2). 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. Section 1985(2) proscribes the following conspiracies: “If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any maimer, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, ■with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws.” Section 1985(3) contains the remedial provision granting a canse of action for damages to those harmed by any of the conspiracies prohibited in § 1985. See Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U. S. 719, 724-725 (1983) (listing the various conspiracies that § 1985 prohibits). We express no opinion regarding respondents’ argument that intimidation claims under §1985(2) are limited to conduct involving force or threat of force, or their argument that only litigants, and not witnesses, may bring § 1985(2) claims. We leave those issues for the courts below to resolve on remand. Petitioner did bring a claim for tortious interference with his employment relation against respondents in Georgia state court, but that claim was dismissed on summary judgment and the dismissal affirmed on appeal. The ultimate course of petitioner’s state-law claim, however, has no bearing on whether he can state a claim for damages under § 1985(2) in federal court. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether the issuance of a complaint by the Federal Trade Commission is “final agency action” subject to judicial review before administrative adjudication concludes. I On July 18, 1973, the Federal Trade Commission issued and served upon eight major oil companies, including Standard Oil Company of California (Socal), a complaint averring that the Commission had “reason to believe” that the companies were violating § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 719, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 45, and stating the Commission’s charges in that respect. The Commission issued the complaint under authority of § 5 (b) of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 45 (b), which provides: “Whenever the Commission shall have reason to believe that any . . . person, partnership, or corporation has been or is using any unfair method of competition or unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, and if it shall appear to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public it shall issue and serve upon such person, partnership, or corporation a complaint stating its charges in that respect and containing a notice of a hearing . . . An adjudication of the complaint’s charges began soon thereafter before an Administrative Law Judge, and is still pending. On May 1, 1975, Socal filed a complaint against the Commission in the District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the Commission had issued its complaint without having “reason to believe” that Socal was violating the Act. Socal sought an order declaring that the issuance of the complaint was unlawful and requiring that the complaint be withdrawn. Socal had sought this relief from the Commission and been denied. In support of its allegation and request, Socal recited a series of events that preceded the issuance of the complaint and several events that followed. In Socal’s estimation, the only inference to be drawn from these events was that the Commission lacked sufficient evidence when it issued the complaint to warrant a belief that Socal was violating the Act. The gist of Socal’s recitation of events preceding the issuance of the complaint is that political pressure for a public explanation of the gasoline shortages of 1973 forced the Commission to issue a complaint against the major oil companies despite insufficient investigation. The series of events began on May 31, 1973. As of that day, the Commission had not examined any employees, documents, or books of Socal’s, although the Commission had announced in December 1971, that it intended to investigate possible violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act in the petroleum industry. On May 31, Senator Henry M. Jackson, then Chairman of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and of the Permanent Investigation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee of Government Operations, requested the Commission “to prepare a report within thirty days regarding the relationship between the structure of the petroleum industry and related industries and the current and prospective shortages of petroleum products.” Immediately the Commission subpoenaed three Soeal officers to testify before it, and they did so in late June. This examination was the Commission’s only inquiry as to Socal’s books and records, and the only interview of a Socal officer, prior to the issuance of the complaint. On July 6, the Commission sent to Senator Jackson a “Preliminary Federal Trade Commission Staff Report on Its Investigation of the Petroleum Industry,” requesting that the report not be made public because it had not yet “been evaluated or approved by the Commission.” On July 9, Senator Jackson informed the Commission by letter that he intended to publish the report as a congressional committee reprint unless the Commission explained by July 13 why public release of the report would be improper. The Commission responded on July 11 that public release of the report, which the Commission characterized as “an internal staff memorandum,” would be “inconsistent with [the Commission’s] duty to proceed judiciously and responsibly in determining what, if any, action should be taken on the basis of the staff investigation.” On July 13, Senator Jackson released the report for publication by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. On July 18, the Commission issued its complaint. The subsequent events recited by Socal in its complaint were intended to confirm that the Commission lacked sufficient evidence before issuing its complaint to determine that it had reason to believe that Socal was violating the Act. One subsequent event was the issuance on August 27 of a report by the Office of Energy Advisor of the Department of the Treasury, concluding that the Commission’s staff report was wrong in implying that the major oil companies had contrived the gasoline shortages. The report recommended that the complaint be withdrawn. A second event was Senator Jackson’s statement in January 1974, at the conclusion of congressional hearings about the shortages, that he had found no “hard evidence” that the oil companies had created shortages. In addition to these expressions of doubt about the allegations of the Commission’s complaint, Socal recounted the several failures of the Commission’s complaint counsel in the adjudication to comply with orders of the Administrative Law Judge to identify the witnesses and documents on which the Commission intended to rely. The complaint counsel admitted that most of the evidence and witnesses the Commission hoped to introduce were yet to be secured through discovery, and he moved to relax the Commission’s procedural rules for adjudication in order to allow such extensive discovery. In certifying this motion to the Commission, the Administrative Law Judge recommended “withdrawal of this case from adjudication — that is, dismissal without prejudice— so that it may be more fully investigated.” The Commission denied the complaint counsel’s motion and declined to follow the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendations. The District Court dismissed Socal’s complaint on the ground that “a review of preliminary decisions made by administrative agencies, except under most unusual circumstances, would be productive of nothing more than chaos.” The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 596 F. 2d 1381 (1979). It held the Commission’s determination whether evidence before it provided the requisite reason to believe is “committed to agency discretion” and therefore is unreviewable according to § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 701 (a)(2). The Court of Appeals held, however, that the District Court could inquire whether the Commission in fact had made the determination that it had reason to believe that Socal was violating the Act. If the District Court were to find upon remand that the Commission had issued the complaint “solely because of outside pressure or with complete absence of a ‘reason to believe’ determination,” 596 F. 2d, at 1386, then it was to order the Commission to dismiss the complaint. The Court of Appeals further held that the issuance of the complaint was “final agency action” under § 10 (c) of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 704. We granted the Commission’s petition for a writ of cer-tiorari because of the importance of the questions raised by Socal’s request for judicial review of the complaint before the conclusion of the adjudication. 445 U. S. 903 (1980). We now reverse. II The Commission averred in its complaint that it had reason to believe that Socal was violating the Act. That averment is subject to judicial review before the conclusion of administrative adjudication only if the issuance of the complaint was “final agency action” or otherwise was “directly reviewable” under § 10 (c) of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 704. We conclude that the issuance of the complaint was neither. A The Commission’s issuance of its complaint was not “final agency action.” The Court observed in Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 149 (1967), that “[t]he cases dealing with judicial review of administrative actions have interpreted the 'finality’ element in a pragmatic way.” In Abbott Laboratories, for example, the publication of certain regulations by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs was held to be final agency action subject to judicial review in an action for declaratory judgment brought prior to any Government action for enforcement. The regulations required manufacturers of prescription drugs to print certain information on drug labels and advertisements. The regulations were “definitive” statements of the Commission’s position, id., at 151, and had a “direct and immediate . . . effect on the day-to-day business” of the complaining parties. Id., at 152. They had “the status of law” and “immediate compliance with their terms was expected.” Ibid. In addition, the question presented by the challenge to the regulations was a “legal issue ... fit for judicial resolution.” Id., at 153. Finally, because the parties seeking the declaratory judgment represented almost all the parties affected by the regulations, “a pre-enforcement challenge . . . [was] calculated to speed enforcement” of the relevant Act. Id., at 154. Taking “a similarly flexible view of finality,” id., at 150, and in view of similar pragmatic considerations, the Court had held the issuance of administrative regulations to be “final agency action” in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. United States, 316 U. S. 407 (1942), Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U. S. 40 (1956), and United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U. S. 192 (1956). The issuance of the complaint in this case, however, is materially different. By its terms, the Commission’s averment of “reason to believe” that Socal was violating the Act is not a definitive statement of position. It represents a threshold determination that further inquiry is warranted and that a complaint should initiate proceedings. To be sure, the issuance of the complaint is definitive on the question whether the Commission avers reason to believe that the respondent to the complaint is violating the Act. But the extent to which the respondent may challenge the complaint and its charges proves that the averment of reason to believe is not “definitive” in a comparable manner to the regulations in Abbott Laboratories and the cases it discussed. Section 5 of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 45 (b), in conjunction with Commission regulations, 16 CFR §§ 3.41-3.46 (1980), and § 5 of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 554 (1976 ed. and Supp. Ill), requires that the complaint contain a notice of hearing at which the respondent may present evidence and testimony before an administrative law judge to refute the Commission’s charges. Either party to the adjudication may appeal an adverse decision of the administrative law judge to the full Commission, 5 U. S. C. §577; 16 CFR §3.52 (1980); see 15 U. S. C. §45 (c), which then may dismiss the complaint. See 15 U. S. C. § 45 (c). If instead the Commission enters an order requiring the respondent to cease and desist from engaging in the challenged practice, the respondent still is not bound by the Commission’s decision until judicial review is complete or the opportunity to seek review has lapsed. 15 U. S. C. §45 (g). Thus, the averment of reason to believe is a prerequisite to a definitive agency position on the question whether Socal violated the Act, but itself is a determination only that adjudicatory proceedings will commence. Cf. Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U. S. 594 (1950); Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103 (1948). Serving only to initiate the proceedings, the issuance of the complaint averring reason to believe has no legal force comparable to that of the regulation at issue in Abbott Laboratories, nor any comparable effect upon Socal’s daily business. The regulations in Abbott Laboratories forced manufacturers to “risk serious criminal and civil penalties” for noncompliance, 387 U. S., at 153, or “change all their labels, advertisements, and promotional materials; . . . destroy stocks of printed matter; and . . . invest heavily in new printing type and new supplies.” Id., at 152. Socal does not contend that the issuance of the complaint had any such legal or practical effect, except to impose upon Socal the burden of responding to the charges made against it. Although this burden certainly is substantial, it is different in kind and legal effect from the burdens attending what heretofore has been considered to be final agency action. In contrast to the complaint’s lack of legal or practical effect upon Socal, the effect of the judicial review sought by Socal is likely to be interference with the proper functioning of the agency and a burden for the courts. Judicial intervention into the agency process denies the agency an opportunity to correct its own mistakes and to apply its expertise. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 765 (1975). Intervention also leads to piecemeal review which at the least is inefficient and upon completion of the agency process might prove to have been unnecessary. McGee v. United States, 402 U. S. 479, 484 (1971); McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 195 (1969). Furthermore, unlike the review in Abbott Laboratories, judicial review to determine whether the Commission decided that it had the requisite reason to believe would delay resolution of the ultimate question whether the Act was violated. Finally, every respondent to a Commission complaint could make the claim that Socal had made. Judicial review of the averments in the Commission’s complaints should not be a means of turning prosecutor into defendant before adjudication concludes. In sum, the Commission’s issuance of a complaint averring reason to believe that Socal was violating the Act is not a definitive ruling or regulation. It had no legal force or practical effect upon Socal’s daily business other than the disruptions that accompany any major litigation. And immediate judicial review would serve neither efficiency nor enforcement of the Act. These pragmatic considerations counsel against the conclusion that the issuance of the complaint was “final agency action.” B Socal relies, however, upon different considerations than these in contending that the issuance of the complaint is “final agency action.” Socal first contends that it exhausted its administrative remedies by moving in the adjudicatory proceedings for dismissal of the complaint. By thus affording the Commission an opportunity to decide upon the matter, Socal contends that it has satisfied the interests underlying the doctrine of administrative exhaustion. Weinberger v. Salfi, supra, at 765. The Court of Appeals agreed. 596 F. 2d, at 1387. We think, however, that Socal and the Court of Appeals have mistaken exhaustion for finality. By requesting the Commission to withdraw its complaint and by awaiting the Commission’s refusal to do so, Socal may well have exhausted its administrative remedy as to the averment of reason to believe. But the Commission’s refusal to reconsider its issuance of the complaint does not render the complaint a “definitive” action. The Commission’s refusal does not augment the complaint’s legal force or practical effect upon Socal. Nor does the refusal diminish the concerns for efficiency and enforcement of the Act. Socal also contends that it will be irreparably harmed unless the issuance of the complaint is judicially reviewed immediately. Socal argues that the expense and disruption of defending itself in protracted adjudicatory proceedings constitutes irreparable harm. As indicated above, we do not doubt that the burden of defending this proceeding will be substantial. But “the expense and annoyance of litigation is 'part of the social burden of living under government.’ ” Petroleum Exploration, Inc. v. Public Service Comm’n, 304 U. S. 209, 222 (1938). As we recently reiterated: “Mere litigation expense, even substantial and unrecoupable cost, does not constitute irreparable injury.” Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U. S. 1, 24 (1974). Socal further contends that its challenge to the Commission’s averment of reason to believe can never be reviewed unless it is reviewed before the Commission’s adjudication concludes. As stated by the Court of Appeals, the alleged unlawfulness in the issuance of the complaint “is likely to become insulated from any review” if deferred until appellate review of a cease-and-desist order. 596 F. 2d, at 1387. Socal also suggests that the unlawfulness will be “insulated” because the reviewing court will lack an adequate record and it will address only the question whether substantial evidence supported the cease-and-desist order. We are not persuaded by this speculation. The Act expressly authorizes a court of appeals to order that the Commission take additional evidence. 15 U. S. C. § 45(c). Thus, a record which would be inadequate for review of alleged unlawfulness in the issuance of a complaint can be made adequate. We also note that the APA specifically provides that a “preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling not directly reviewable is subject to review on the review of the final agency action,” 5 U. S. C. § 704, and that the APA also empowers a court of appeals to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found to be . . . without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U. S. C. § 706. Thus, assuming that the issuance of the complaint is not “committed to agency discretion by law,” a court of appeals reviewing a cease-and-desist order has the power to review alleged unlawfulness in the issuance of a complaint. We need not decide what action a court of appeals should take if it finds a cease-and-desist order to be supported by substantial evidence but the complaint to have been issued without the requisite reason to believe. It suffices to hold that the possibility does not affect the application of the finality rule. Cf. Macauley v. Waterman S.S. Cory., 327 U. S. 540, 545 (1946). c There remains only Socal’s contention that the claim of illegality in the issuance of the complaint is a “collateral” order subject to review under the doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949). It argues that the Commission’s issuance of the complaint averring reason to believe “fall[s] in that small class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in th'e action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Id., at 546. In that diversity case, a District Court refused to apply a state statute requiring shareholders bringing a derivative suit to post a security bond for the defendant’s litigation expenses. This Court held that the District Court’s order was subject to immediate appellate review under 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Giving that section a “practical rather than a technical construction,” the Court concluded that this order “did not make any step toward final disposition of the merits of the case and will not be merged in final judgment.” 337 U. S., at 546. Cohen does not avail Socal. What we have said above makes clear that the issuance of the complaint averring reason to believe is a step toward, and will merge in, the Commission’s decision on the merits. Therefore, review of this preliminary step should abide review of the final order. Ill Because the Commission’s issuance of a complaint averring reason to believe that Socal has violated the Act is not “final agency action” under § 10 (c) of the APA, it is not judicially reviewable before administrative adjudication concludes. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals and remand for the dismissal of the complaint. c r, . , ,7 It is so ordered. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The other seven respondents to the complaint were Exxon Corp., Texaco, Inc., Gulf Oil Corp., Mobil Oil Corp., Standard Oil Co. (Indiana), Shell Oil Corp., and Atlantic Richfield Co. In re Exxon Corporation, et al., Docket No. 8934. Section 5 of the Act, as set forth in 15 U. S. C. § 45, provides in pertinent part: “(a) ... (1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” The Commission charged that the eight companies had “maintained and reinforced a noncopipetitive market structure in the refining of crude oil into petroleum products,” had “exercised monopoly power in the refining of petroleum products,” and had followed “common courses of action in accommodating the needs and goals of each other throughout the petroleum industry.” Socal invoked federal-court jurisdiction under 5 U. S. C. § 704 and 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1346, 1361, and 2201. The Commission had denied Socal’s motion to dismiss the complaint on February 12, 1974. The Commission also had denied Socal’s motion for reconsideration, stating: “[I]t has long been settled that the adequacy of the Commission’s 'reason to believe’ a violation of law has occurred and its belief that a proceeding to stop it would be in the 'public interest’ are matters that go to the mental processes of the Commissioners and will not be reviewed by the courts. Once the Commission has resolved these questions and issued a complaint, the issue to be litigated is not the adequacy of the Commission’s pre-complaint information or the diligence of its study of the material in question but whether the alleged violation has in fact occurred. That is the posture of the instant matter.” In re Exxon Corp., 83 F. T. C. 1759, 1760 (1974). On July 6, 1973, the Commission subpoenaed certain of SocaPs books and records, but the complaint was issued before those records were produced. The subpoena was quashed on July 27, 1973, by the commencement of adjudication. In addition to contending that the issuance of the complaint is not “final” agency action, the Commission argues that' the issuance is not “agency action” under § 2 (g) of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 551 (13), and that, if agency action, it is “committed to agency discretion by law” under § 10. 5 U. S. C. §701 (a)(2). We agree with Socal and with the Court of Appeals that the issuance of the complaint is “agency action.” The language of the APA and its legislative history support this conclusion. According to § 10 of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 701 (b) (2), “agency action” has the meaning given to it by §2, 5 U. S. C. § 551. That section provides that “ 'agency action’ includes the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act,” 5 U. S. C. § 551 (13), and also that “ 'order’ means the whole or a part of a final disposition . . . of an agency in a matter other than rule making . . . .” 5 U. S. C. § 551 (6). According to the legislative history of the APA: “The term 'agency action’ brings together previously defined terms in order to simplify the language of the judicial-review provisions of section 10 and to assure the complete coverage of every form of agency power, proceeding, action, or inaction. In that respect the term includes the supporting procedures, findings, conclusions, or statements or reasons or basis for the action or inaction.” S. Doc. No. 248, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 255 (1946). We conclude that the issuance of the complaint by the Commission is “a part of a final disposition” and therefore is “agency action.” In view of our conclusion that the issuance of the complaint was not “final agency action,” we do not address the question whether the issuance of a complaint is “committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U. S. C. §701 (a) (2). In Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. United States, the Court held reviewable a regulation of the Federal Communications Commission proscribing certain contractual arrangements between chain broadcasters and local stations. The Commission did not have authority to regulate such contracts; its regulation asserted only that the Commission would not license stations which maintained such contracts. In a challenge to the regulation before any enforcement action had been brought, the Court noted that the regulations had “the force of law before their sanctions are invoked as well as after/’ that they were “promulgated by order of the Commission,” and that “the expected conformity to them causes injury cognizable by a court of equity.” 316 U. S., at 418-419. In Frozen Food Express v. United States, the Court held reviewable an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission specifying commodities that were deemed not to be “agricultural . . . commodities.” The carriage of such commodities exempted vehicles from ICC supervision. The order was held to be “final agency action” in a challenge brought by a carrier transporting commodities that the ICC’s order had not included in its terms. In United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., the Court also held reviewable as “final agency action” a Federal Communications Commission regulation announcing a policy not to issue television licenses to applicants already owning five such licenses. The rulemaking was complete and “operate [d] to control the business affairs of Storer.” 351 U. S., at 199. The Commission held as much in its order denying Socal’s motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss. See n. 5, supra. Possible judicial review also includes review in this Court upon a writ of certiorari. 15 U. S. C. § 45 (g). The Court of Appeals additionally suggested that the complaint would be “insulated” from review because the alleged unlawfulness would be moot if Socal prevailed in the adjudication. These concerns do not support a conclusion that the issuance of a complaint averring reason to believe is “final agency action.” To the contrary, one of the principal reasons to await the termination of agency proceedings is “to obviate all occasion for judicial review.” Supra, at 242; McGee v. United States, 402 U. S. 479, 484 (1971); McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 195 (1969). Thus, the possibility that Socal’s challenge may be mooted in adjudication warrants the requirement that Socal pursue adjudication, not shortcut it. Section 5 (c), as set forth in 15 U. S. C. § 45 (c), provides in pertinent part: “If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Commission, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Commission and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may see proper.” Contrary to the suggestion of Justice Stevens in his concurring opinion, we do not hold that the issuance of the complaint is reviewable agency action. We leave open the question whether the issuance of the complaint is unreviewable because it is “committed to agency discretion by law.” See n. 7, supra. By this holding, we do not encourage the issuance of complaints by the Commission without a conscientious compliance with the “reason to believe” obligation in 15 U. S. C. § 45 (b). The adjudicatory proceedings which follow the issuance of a complaint may last for months or years. They result in substantial expense to the respondent and may divert management personnel from their administrative and productive duties to the corporation. Without a well-grounded reason to believe that unlawful conduct has occurred, the Commission does not serve the public interest by subjecting business enterprises to these burdens. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal brings into question the constitutionality of § 903 of the Charter of the City of New York. That section provides that whenever an employee of the City utilizes the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid answering a question relating to his official conduct, “his term or tenure of office or employment shall terminate and such office or employment shall be vacant, and he shall not be eligible to election or appointment to any office or employment under the city or any agency.” Appellant Slochower invoked the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment before an investigating committee of the United States Senate, and was summarily discharged from his position as associate professor at Brooklyn College, an institution maintained by the City of New York. He now claims that the charter provision, as applied to him, violates both the Due Process and Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. On September 24, 1952, the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate held open hearings in New York City. The investigation, conducted on a national scale, related to subversive influences in the American educational system. At the beginning of the hearings the Chairman stated that education was primarily a state and local function, and therefore the inquiry would be limited to “considerations affecting national security, which are directly within the purview and authority of the subcommittee.” Hearings Before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 1. Professor Slochower, when called to testify, stated that he was not a member of the Communist Party, and indicated complete willingness to answer all questions about his associations or political beliefs since 1941. But he refused to answer questions concerning his membership during 1940 and 1941 on the ground that his answers might tend to incriminate him. The Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee accepted Slochower’s claim as a valid assertion of an admitted constitutional right. It had been alleged that Slochower was a Communist in 1941 in the testimony of one Bernard Grebanier before the Rapp-Coudert Committee of the New York Legislature. See Report of the Subcommittee of the Joint Legislative Committee to Investigate Procedures and Methods of Allocating State Moneys for Public School Purposes and Subversive Activities, Legislative Document (1942), No. 49, State of New York, at 318. Slochower testified that he had appeared twice before the Rapp-Coudert Committee, and had subsequently testified before the Board of Faculty relating to this charge. He also testified that he had answered questions at these hearings relating to his Communist affiliations in 1940 and 1941. Shortly after testifying before the Internal Security Subcommittee, Slochower was notified that he was suspended from his position at the College; three days later his position was declared vacant “pursuant to the provisions of Section 903 of the New York City Charter.” [] Slochower had 27 years’ experience as a college teacher and was entitled to tenure under state law. McKinney’s New York Laws, Education Law, § 6206 (2). Under this statute, appellant may be discharged only for cause, and after notice, hearing, and appeal. § 6206 (10). The Court of Appeals of New York, however, has authoritatively interpreted § 903 to mean that “the assertion of the privilege against self incrimination is equivalent to a resignation.” Daniman v. Board of Education, 306 N. Y. 532, 538, 119 N. E. 2d 373, 377. Dismissal under this provision is therefore automatic and there is no right to charges, notice, hearing, or opportunity to explain. The Supreme Court of New York, County of Kings, concluded that appellant’s behavior fell within the scope of § 903, and upheld its application here. 202 Misc. 915, 118 N. Y. S. 2d 487. The Appellate Division, 282 App. Div. 718, 122 N. Y. S. 2d 286, reported sub nom. Shlakman v. Board, and the Court of Appeals, reported sub nom. Daniman v. Board, supra, each by a divided court, affirmed. We noted probable jurisdiction, 348 U. S. 935, because of the importance of the question presented. Slochower argues that § 903 abridges a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States since it in effect imposes a penalty on the exercise of a federally guaranteed right in a federal proceeding. It also violates due process, he argues, because the mere claim of privilege under the Fifth Amendment does not provide a reasonable basis for the State to terminate his employment. Appellee insists that no question of “privileges or immunities” was raised or passed on below, and therefore directs its argument solely to the proposition that § 903 does not operate in an arbitrary or capricious manner. We do not decide whether a claim under the “privileges or immunities” clause was considered below, since we conclude the summary dismissal of appellant in the circumstances of this case violates due process of law. The problem of balancing the State’s interest in the loyalty of those in its service with the traditional safeguards of individual rights is a continuing one. To state that a person does not have a constitutional right to government employment is only to say that he must comply with reasonable, lawful, and nondiscriminatory terms laid down by the proper authorities. Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 485, upheld the New York Feinberg Law which authorized the public school authorities to dismiss employees who, after notice and hearing, were found to advocate the overthrow of the Government by unlawful means, or who were unable to explain satisfactorily membership in certain organizations found to have that aim. Likewise Garner v. Los Angeles Board, 341 U. S. 716, 720, upheld the right of the city to inquire of its employees as to “matters that may prove relevant to their fitness and suitability for the public service,” including their membership, past and present, in the Communist Party or the Communist Political Association. There it was held that the city had power to discharge employees who refused to file an affidavit disclosing such information to the school authorities. But in each of these cases it was emphasized that the State must conform to the requirements of due process. In Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, we struck down a so-called “loyalty oath” because it based employability solely on the fact of membership in certain organizations. We pointed out that membership itself may be innocent and held that the classification of innocent and guilty together was arbitrary. This case rests squarely on the proposition that “constitutional protection does extend to the public servant whose exclusion pursuant to a statute is patently arbitrary or discriminatory.” 344 U. S., at 192. Here the Board, in support of its position, contends that only two possible inferences flow from appellant’s claim of self-incrimination: (1) that the answering of the question would tend to prove him guilty of a crime in some way connected with his official conduct; or (2) that in order to avoid answering the question he falsely invoked the privilege by stating that the answer would tend to incriminate him, and thus committed perjury. Either inference, it insists, is sufficient to justify the termination of his employment. The Court of Appeals, however, accepted the Committee’s determination that the privilege had been properly invoked and it further held that no inference of Communist Party membership could be drawn from such a refusal to testify. It found the statute to impose merely a condition on public employment and affirmed the summary action taken in the case. With this conclusion we cannot agree. At the outset we must condemn the practice of imputing a sinister meaning to the exercise of a person’s constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment. The right of an accused person to refuse to testify, which had been in England merely a rule of evidence, was so important to our forefathers that they raised it to the dignity of a constitutional enactment, and it has been recognized as “one of the most valuable prerogatives of the citizen.” Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 610. We have reaffirmed our faith in this principle recently in Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155. In Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422, decided last month, we scored the assumption that those who claim this privilege are either criminals or perjurers. The privilege against self-incrimination would be reduced to a hollow mockery if its exercise could be taken as equivalent either to a confession of guilt or a conclusive presumption of perjury. As we pointed out in Ullmann, a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. See Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today (1955). With this in mind, we consider the application of § 903. As interpreted and applied by the state courts, it operates to discharge every city employee who invokes the Fifth Amendment. In practical effect the questions asked are taken as confessed and made the basis of the discharge. No consideration is given to such factors as the subject matter of the questions, remoteness of the period to which they are directed, or justification for exercise of the privilege. It matters not whether the plea resulted from mistake, inadvertence or legal advice conscientiously given, whether wisely or unwisely. The heavy hand of the statute falls alike on all who exercise their constitutional privilege, the full enjoyment of which every person is entitled to receive. Such action falls squarely within the prohibition of Wieman v. Updegraff, supra. It is one thing for the city authorities themselves to inquire into Slochower’s fitness, but quite another for his discharge to be based entirely on events occurring before a federal committee whose inquiry was announced as not directed at “the property, affairs, or government of the city, or . . . oficial conduct of city employees.” In this respect the present case differs materially from Garner, where the city was attempting to elicit information necessary to determine the qualifications of its employees. Here, the Board had possessed the pertinent information for 12 years, and the questions which Professor Slochower refused to answer were admittedly asked for a purpose wholly unrelated to his college functions. On such a record the Board cannot claim that its action was part of a bona fide attempt to gain needed and relevant information. Without attacking Professor Slochower’s qualification for his position in any manner, and apparently with full knowledge of the testimony he had given some 12 years before at the state committee hearing, the Board seized upon his claim of privilege before the federal committee and converted it through the use of § 903 into a conclusive presumption of guilt. Since no inference of guilt was possible from the claim before the federal committee, the discharge falls of its own" weight as wholly without support. There has not been the “protection of the individual against arbitrary action” which Mr. Justice Cardozo characterized as the very essence of due process. Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Commission, 301 U. S. 292, 302. This is not to say that Slochower has a constitutional right to be an associate professor of German at Brooklyn College. The State has broad powers in the selection and discharge of its employees, and it may be that proper inquiry would show Slochower’s continued employment to be inconsistent with a real interest of the State. But there has been no such inquiry here. We hold that the summary dismissal of appellant violates due process of law. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas join the Court’s judgment and opinion, but also adhere to the views expressed in their dissents in Adler v. Board of Education, and Garner v. Los Angeles Board, supra, and to their concurrences in Wieman v. Updegraff, supra. The full text of § 903 provides: “If any councilman or other officer or employee of the city shall, after lawful notice or process, wilfully refuse or fail to appear before any court or judge, any legislative committee, or any officer, board or body authorized to conduct any hearing or inquiry, or having appeared shall refuse to testify or to answer any question regarding the property, government or affairs of the city or of any county included within its territorial limits, or regarding the nomination, election, appointment or official conduct of any officer or employee of the city or of any such county, on the ground that his answer would tend to incriminate him, or shall refuse to waive immunity from prosecution on account of any such matter in relation to which he may be asked to testify upon any such hearing or inquiry, his term or tenure of office or employment shall terminate and such office or employment shall be vacant, and he shall not be eligible to election or appointment to any office or employment under the city or any agency.” [Reporter’s Note: A sentence which was reported in the Preliminary Print at p. 554, lines 13-18, was deleted by an order of the Court entered May 28,1956, 351 U. S. 944.] Thirteen other individuals brought suit for reinstatement after their dismissal for pleading the privilege against self-incrimination in the same federal investigation. We dismissed the appeal of these individuals “for want of a properly presented federal question.” Daniman v. Board, 348 U. S. 933. See Daniman v. Board, 307 N. Y. 806, 121 N. E. 2d 629, where the New York Court of Appeals declined to amend its remittitur to state that a federal question had been presented and passed on as to these appellants, but did so amend its remittitur as to Slochower. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissented. Mr. Justice Frankfurter dissented on grounds of standing and ripeness. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissented. Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Burton concurred in this aspect of the case, but dissented from other portions of the decision in separate opinions. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Frankfurter concurred in separate opinions in which Mr. Justice Douglas joined. Mr. Justice Burton concurred in the result. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

C

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 (Fees Act) provides that “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party... a reasonable attorney’s fee” in enumerated civil rights actions. 90 Stat. 2641, 42 U. S. C. § 1988. In Maher v. Gagne, 448 U. S. 122 (1980), we held that fees may be assessed against state officials after a case has been settled by the entry of a consent decree. In this case, we consider the question whether attorney’s fees must be assessed when the case has been settled by a consent decree granting prospective relief to the plaintiff class but providing that the defendants shall not pay any part of the prevailing party’s fees or costs. We hold that the District Court has the power, in its sound discretion, to refuse to award fees. I The petitioners are the Governor and other public officials of the State of Idaho responsible for the education and treatment of children who suffer from emotional and mental handicaps. Respondents are a class of such children who have been or will be placed in petitioners’ care. On August 4, 1980, respondents commenced this action by filing a complaint against petitioners in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The factual allegations in the complaint described deficiencies in both the educational programs and the health care services provided respondents. These deficiencies allegedly violated the United States Constitution, the Idaho Constitution, four federal statutes, and certain provisions of the Idaho Code. The complaint prayed for injunctive relief and for an award of costs and attorney’s fees, but it did not seek damages. On the day the complaint was filed, the District Court entered two orders, one granting the respondents leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and a second appointing Charles Johnson as their next friend for the sole purpose of instituting and prosecuting the action. At that time Johnson was employed by the Idaho Legal Aid Society, Inc., a private, nonprofit corporation that provides free legal services to qualified low-income persons. Because the Idaho Legal Aid Society is prohibited from representing clients who are capable of paying their own fees, it made no agreement requiring any of the respondents to pay for the costs of litigation or the legal services it provided through Johnson. Moreover, the special character of both the class and its attorney-client relationship with Johnson explains why it did not enter into any agreement covering the various contingencies that might arise during the course of settlement negotiations of a class action of this kind. Shortly after petitioners filed their answer, and before substantial work had been done on the case, the parties entered into settlement negotiations. They were able to reach agreement concerning that part of the complaint relating to educational services with relative ease and, on October 14, 1981, entered into a stipulation disposing of that part of the case. The stipulation provided that, each party would bear its “own attorney’s fees and costs thus far incurred.” App. 54. The District Court promptly entered an order approving the partial settlement. Negotiations concerning the treatment claims broke down, however, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Although the District Court dismissed several of respondents’ claims, it held that the federal constitutional claims raised genuine issues of fact to be resolved at trial. Thereafter, the parties stipulated to the entry of a class certification order, engaged in discovery, and otherwise prepared to try the case in the spring of 1988. In March 1983, one week before trial, petitioners presented respondents with a new settlement proposal. As respondents themselves characterize it, the proposal “offered virtually all of the injunctive relief [they] had sought in their complaint.” Brief for Respondents 5. See App. 89. The Court of Appeals agreed with this characterization, and further noted that the proposed relief was “more than the district court in earlier hearings had indicated it was willing to grant.” 748 F. 2d 648, 650 (CA9 1984). As was true of the earlier partial settlement, however, petitioners’ offer included a provision for a waiver by respondents of any claim to fees or costs. Originally, this waiver was unacceptable to the Idaho Legal Aid Society, which had instructed Johnson to reject any settlement offer conditioned upon a waiver of fees, but Johnson ultimately determined that his ethical obligation to his clients mandated acceptance of the proposal. The parties conditioned the waiver on approval by the District Court. After the stipulation was signed, Johnson filed a written motion requesting the District Court to approve the settlement “except for the provision on costs and attorney’s fees,” and to allow respondents to present a bill of costs and fees for consideration by the court. App. 87. At the oral argument on that motion, Johnson contended that petitioners’ offer had exploited his ethical duty to his clients — that he was “forced,” by an offer giving his clients “the best result [they] could have gotten in this court or any other court,” to waive his attorney’s fees. The District Court, however, evaluated the waiver in the context of the entire settlement and rejected the ethical underpinnings of Johnson’s argument. Explaining that although petitioners were “not willing to concede that they were obligated to [make the changes in their practices required by the stipulation],... they were willing to do them as long as their costs were outlined and they didn’t face additional costs,” it concluded that “it doesn’t violate any ethical considerations for an attorney to give up his attorney fees in the interest of getting a better bargain for his client[s].” Id., at 93. Accordingly, the District Court approved the settlement and denied the motion to submit a costs bill. When respondents appealed from the order denying attorney’s fees and costs, petitioners filed a motion requesting the District Court to suspend or stay their obligation to comply with the substantive terms of the settlement. Because the District Court regarded the fee waiver as a material term of the complete settlement, it granted the motion. The Court of Appeals, however, granted two emergency motions for stays requiring enforcement of the substantive terms of the consent decree pending the appeal. More dramatically, after ordering preliminary relief, it invalidated the fee waiver and left standing the remainder of the settlement; it then instructed the District Court to “make its own determination of the fees that are reasonable” and remanded for that limited purpose. 743 F. 2d, at 652. In explaining its holding, the Court of Appeals emphasized that Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives the court the power to approve the terms of all settlements of class actions, and that the strong federal policy embodied in the Fees Act normally requires an award of fees to prevailing plaintiffs in civil rights actions, including those who have prevailed through settlement. The court added that “[w]hen attorney’s fees are negotiated as part of a class action settlement, a conflict frequently exists between the class lawyers’ interest in compensation and the class members’ interest in relief.” 743 F. 2d, at 651-652. “To avoid this conflict,” the Court of Appeals relied on Circuit precedent which had “disapproved simultaneous negotiation of settlements and attorney’s fees” absent a showing of “unusual circumstances.” Id., at 652. In this case, the Court of Appeals found no such “unusual circumstances” and therefore held that an agreement on fees “should not have been a part of the settlement of the claims of the class.” Ibid. It concluded: “The historical background of both Rule 23 and section 1988, as well as our experience since their enactment, compel the conclusion that a stipulated waiver of all attorney’s fees obtained solely as a condition for obtaining relief for the class should not be accepted by the court.” Ibid. The importance of the question decided by the Court of Appeals, together with the conflict between its decision and the decisions of other Courts of Appeals, led us to grant certio-rari. 471 U. S. 1098 (1985). We now reverse. HH Í — i The disagreement between the parties and amici as to what exactly is at issue in this case makes it appropriate to put certain aspects of the case to one side in order to state precisely the question that the case does present. To begin with, the Court of Appeals’ decision rested on an erroneous view of the District Court’s power to approve settlements in class actions. Rule 23(e) wisely requires court approval of the terms of any settlement of a class action, but the power to approve or reject a settlement negotiated by the parties before trial does not authorize the court to require the parties to accept a settlement to which they have not agreed. Although changed circumstances may justify a court-ordered modification of a consent decree over the objections of a party after the decree has been entered, and the District Court might have advised petitioners and respondents that it would not approve their proposal unless one or more of its provisions was deleted or modified, Rule 23(e) does not give the court the power, in advance of trial, to modify a proposed consent decree and order its acceptance over either party’s objection. The options available to the District Court were essentially the same as those available to respondents: it could have accepted the proposed settlement; it could have rejected the proposal and postponed the trial to see if a different settlement could be achieved; or it could have decided to try the case. The District Court could not enforce the settlement on the merits and award attorney’s fees anymore than it could, in a situation in which the attorney had negotiated a large fee at the expense of the plaintiff class, preserve the fee award and order greater relief on the merits. The question we must decide, therefore, is whether the District Court had a duty to reject the proposed settlement because it included a waiver of statutorily authorized attorney’s fees. That duty, whether it takes the form of a general prophylactic rule or arises out of the special circumstances of this case, derives ultimately from the Fees Act rather than from the strictures of professional ethics. Although respondents contend that Johnson, as counsel for the class, was faced with an “ethical dilemma” when petitioners offered him relief greater than that which he could reasonably have expected to obtain for his clients at trial (if only he would stipulate to a waiver of the statutory fee award), and although we recognize Johnson’s conflicting interests between pursuing relief for the class and a fee for the Idaho Legal Aid Society, we do not believe that the “dilemma” was an “ethical” one in the sense that Johnson had to choose between conflicting duties under the prevailing norms of professional conduct. Plainly, Johnson had no ethical obligation to seek a statutory fee award. His ethical duty was to serve his clients loyally and competently. Since the proposal to settle the merits was more favorable than the probable outcome of the trial, Johnson’s decision to recommend acceptance was consistent with the highest standards of our profession. The District Court, therefore, correctly concluded that approval of the settlement involved no breach of ethics in this case. The defect, if any, in the negotiated fee waiver must be traced not to the rules of ethics but to the Fees Act. Following this tack, respondents argue that the statute must be construed to forbid a fee waiver that is the product of “coercion.” They submit that a “coercive waiver” results when the defendant in a civil rights action (1) offers a settlement on the merits of equal or greater value than that which plaintiffs could reasonably expect to achieve at trial but (2) conditions the offer on a waiver of plaintiffs’ statutory eligibility for attorney’s fees. Such an offer, they claim, exploits the ethical obligation of plaintiffs’ counsel to recommend settlement in order to avoid defendant’s statutory liability for its opponents’ fees and costs. The question this case presents, then, is whether the Fees Act requires a district court to disapprove a stipulation seeking to settle a civil rights class action under Rule 23 when the offered relief equals or exceeds the probable outcome at trial but is expressly conditioned on waiver of statutory eligibility for attorney’s fees. For reasons set out below, we are not persuaded that Congress has commanded that all such settlements must be rejected by the District Court. Moreover, on the facts of record in this case, we are satisfied that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by approving the fee waiver. Ill The text of the Fees Act provides no support for the proposition that Congress intended to ban all fee waivers offered in connection with substantial relief on the merits. On the contrary, the language of the Act, as well as its legislative history, indicates that Congress bestowed on the “prevailing party” (generally plaintiffs) a statutory eligibility for a discretionary award of attorney’s fees in specified civil rights actions. It did not prevent the party from waiving this eligibility anymore than it legislated against assignment of this right to an attorney, such as effectively occurred here. Instead, Congress enacted the fee-shifting provision as “an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain” compliance with civil rights laws, S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 5 (1976), to further the same general purpose — promotion of respect for civil rights — that led it to provide damages and injunctive relief. The statute and its legislative history nowhere suggest that Congress intended to forbid all waivers of attorney’s fees — even those insisted upon by a civil rights plaintiff in exchange for some other relief to which he is indisputably not entitled — anymore than it intended to bar a concession on damages to secure broader injunctive relief. Thus, while it is undoubtedly true that Congress expected fee shifting to attract competent counsel to represent citizens deprived of their civil rights, it neither bestowed fee awards upon attorneys nor rendered them nonwaivable or nonnegotiable; instead, it added them to the arsenal of remedies available to combat violations of civil rights, a goal not invariably inconsistent with conditioning settlement on the merits on a waiver of statutory attorney’s fees. In fact, we believe that a general proscription against negotiated waiver of attorney’s fees in exchange for a settlement on the merits would itself impede vindication of civil rights, at least in some cases, by reducing the attractiveness of settlement. Of particular relevance in this regard is our recent decision in Marek v. Chesny, 473 U. S. 1 (1985). In that case, which admittedly was not a class action and therefore did not implicate the court’s approval power under Rule 23(e), we specifically considered and rejected the contention that civil rights actions should be treated differently from other civil actions for purposes of settlement. As The Chief Justice explained in his opinion for the Court, the settlement of litigation provides benefits for civil rights plaintiffs as well as defendants and is consistent with the purposes of the Fees Act: “There is no evidence, however, that Congress, in considering § 1988, had any thought that civil rights claims were to be on any different footing from other civil claims insofar as settlement is concerned. Indeed, Congress made clear its concern that civil rights plaintiffs not be penalized for ‘helping to lessen docket congestion’ by settling their cases out of court. See H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 7. “... Some plaintiffs will receive compensation in settlement where, on trial, they might not have recovered, or would have recovered less than what was offered. And, even for those who would prevail at trial, settlement will provide them with compensation at an earlier date without the burdens, stress, and time of litigation. In short, settlements rather than litigation will serve the interests of plaintiffs as well as defendants.” 473 U. S., at 10. To promote both settlement and civil rights, we implicitly acknowledged in Marek v. Chesny the possibility of a tradeoff between merits relief and attorney’s fees when we upheld the defendant’s lump-sum offer to settle the entire civil rights action, including any liability for fees and costs. In approving the package offer in Marek v. Chesny we recognized that a rule prohibiting the comprehensive negotiation of all outstanding issues in a pending case might well preclude the settlement of a substantial number of cases: “If defendants are not allowed to make lump-sum offers that would, if accepted, represent their total liability, they would understandably be reluctant to make settlement offers. As the Court of Appeals observed, ‘many a defendant would be unwilling to make a binding settlement offer on terms that left it exposed to liability for attorney’s fees in whatever amount the court might fix on motion of the plaintiff.’ 720 F. 2d, at 477.” Id., at 6-7. See White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U. S. 445, 454, n. 15 (1982) (“In considering whether to enter a negotiated settlement, a defendant may have good reason to demand to know his total liability from both damages and fees”). Most defendants are unlikely to settle unless the cost of the predicted judgment, discounted by its probability, plus the transaction costs of further litigation, are greater than the cost of the settlement package. If fee waivers cannot be negotiated, the settlement package, must either contain an attorney’s fee component of potentially large and typically uncertain magnitude, or else the parties must agree to have the fee fixed by the court. Although either of these alternatives may well be acceptable in many cases, there surely is a significant number in which neither alternative will be as satisfactory as a decision to try the entire case. The adverse impact of removing attorney’s fees and costs from bargaining might be tolerable if the uncertainty introduced into settlement negotiations were small. But it is not. The defendants’ potential liability for fees in this kind of litigation can be as significant as, and sometimes even more significant than, their potential liability on the merits. This proposition is most dramatically illustrated by the fee awards of district courts in actions seeking only monetary relief. Although it is more difficult to compare fee awards with the cost of injunctive relief, in part because the cost of such relief is seldom reported in written opinions, here too attorney’s fees awarded by district courts have “frequently outrun the economic benefits ultimately obtained by successful litigants.” 122 Cong. Rec. 31472 (1976) (remarks of Sen. Kennedy). Indeed, in this very case “[c]ounsel for defendants view[ed] the risk of an attorney’s fees award as the most significant liability in the case.” Brief for Defendants in Support of Approval of Compromise in Jeff D. v. Evans, No. 80-4091 (D. Idaho), p. 5. Undoubtedly there are many other civil rights actions in which potential liability for attorney’s fees may overshadow the potential cost of relief on the merits and darken prospects for settlement if fees cannot be negotiated. The unpredictability of attorney’s fees may be just as important as their magnitude when a defendant is striving to fix its liability. Unlike a determination of costs, which ordinarily involve smaller outlays and are more susceptible of calculation, see Marek v. Chesny, 473 U. S., at 7, “[tjhere is no precise rule or formula” for determining attorney’s fees, Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424, 436 (1983). Among other considerations, the district court must determine what hours were reasonably expended on what claims, whether that expenditure was reasonable in light of the success obtained, see id., at 436, 440, and what is an appropriate hourly rate for the services rendered. Some District Courts have also considered whether a “multiplier” or other adjustment is appropriate. The consequence of this succession of necessarily judgmental decisions for the ultimate fee award is inescapable: a defendant’s liability for his opponent’s attorney’s fees in a civil rights action cannot be fixed with a sufficient degree of confidence to make defendants indifferent to their exclusion from negotiation. It is therefore not implausible to anticipate that parties to a significant number of civil rights cases will refuse to settle if liability for attorney’s fees remains open, thereby forcing more cases to trial, unnecessarily burdening the judicial system, and disserving civil rights litigants. Respondents’ own waiver of attorney’s fees and costs to obtain settlement of their educational claims is eloquent testimony to the utility of fee waivers in vindicating civil rights claims. We conclude, therefore, that it is not necessary to construe the Fees Act as embodying a general rule prohibiting settlements conditioned on the waiver of fees in order to be faithful to the purposes of that Act. h — i <1 The question remains whether the District Court abused its discretion in this case by approving a settlement which included a complete fee waiver. As noted earlier, Rule 23(e) wisely requires court approval of the terms of any settlement of a class action. The potential conflict among members of the class — in this case, for example, the possible conflict between children primarily interested in better educational programs and those primarily interested in improved health care — fully justifies the requirement of court approval. The Court of Appeals, respondents, and various amici supporting their position, however, suggest that the court’s authority to pass on settlements, typically invoked to ensure fair treatment of class members, must be exercised in accordance with the Fees Act to promote the availability of attorneys in civil rights cases. Specifically, respondents assert that the State of Idaho could not pass a valid statute precluding the payment of attorney’s fees in settlements of civil rights cases to which the Fees Act applies. See Brief for Respondents 24, n. 22. From this they reason that the Fees Act must equally preclude the adoption of a uniform statewide policy that serves the same end, and accordingly contend that a consistent practice of insisting on a fee waiver as a condition of settlement in civil rights litigation is in conflict with the federal statute authorizing fees for prevailing parties, including those who prevail by way of settlement. Remarkably, there seems little disagreement on these points. Petitioners and the amici who support them never suggest that the district court is obligated to place its stamp of approval on every settlement in which the plaintiffs’ attorneys have agreed to a fee waiver. The Solicitor General, for example, has suggested that a fee waiver need not be approved when the defendant had “no realistic defense on the merits,” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Reversal 23, n. 9; see id., at 26-27, or if the waiver was part of a “vindictive effort... to teach counsel that they had better not bring such cases,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 22. We find it unnecessary to evaluate this argument, however, because the record in this case does not indicate that Idaho has adopted such a statute, policy, or practice. Nor does the record support the narrower proposition that petitioners’ request to waive fees was a vindictive effort to deter attorneys from representing plaintiffs in civil rights suits against Idaho. It is true that a fee waiver was requested and obtained as a part of the early settlement of the education claims, but we do not understand respondents to be challenging that waiver, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 31-32, and they have not offered to prove that petitioners’ tactics in this case merely implemented a routine state policy designed to frustrate the objectives of the Fees Act. Our own examination of the record reveals no such policy. In light of the record, respondents must — to sustain the judgment in their favor — confront the District Court’s finding that the extensive structural relief they obtained constituted an adequate quid pro quo for their waiver of attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals did not overturn this finding. Indeed, even that court did not suggest that the option of rejecting the entire settlement and requiring the parties either to try the case or to attempt to negotiate a different settlement would have served the interests of justice. Only by making the unsupported assumption that the respondent class was entitled to retain the favorable portions of the settlement while rejecting the fee waiver could the Court of Appeals conclude that the District Court had acted unwisely. What the outcome of this settlement illustrates is that the Fees Act has given the victims of civil rights violations a powerful weapon that improves their ability to employ counsel, to obtain access to the courts, and thereafter to vindicate their rights by means of settlement or trial. For aught that appears, it was the “coercive” effect of respondents’ statutory right to seek a fee award that motivated petitioners’ exceptionally generous offer. Whether this weapon might be even more powerful if fee waivers were prohibited in cases like this is another question, but it is in any event a question that Congress is best equipped to answer. Thus far, the Legislature has not commanded that fees be paid whenever a case is settled. Unless it issues such a command, we shall rely primarily on the sound discretion of the district courts to appraise the reasonableness of particular class-action settlements on a case-by-case basis, in the light of all the relevant circumstances. In this case, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in upholding a fee waiver which secured broad injunctive relief, relief greater than that which plaintiffs could reasonably have expected to achieve at trial. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered. The number of children in petitioners’ custody, as well as the duration of that custody, fluctuates to a certain degree. Although it appears that only 40 or 50 children are in custody at any one moment, the membership jn respondents’ class is apparently well over 2,000. App. 61. Although Johnson subsequently entered private practice and apparently bore some of the financial burden of the litigation himself, any award of costs or fees would inure to the benefit of Idaho Legal Aid. Brief for Plaintiffs in Support of Motion for Consideration of Costs and Attorney Fees in Jeff D. v. Evans, No. 80-4091 (D. Idaho), p. 6. Idaho Legal Aid receives grants under the Legal Services Corporation Act, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2996-2996J, and is not allowed to represent clients who are capable of paying their own legal fees, see § 2996f(b)(l); 45 CFR § 1609 (1984). Petitioners append to their brief on the merits the parties’ correspondence setting forth their respective positions on settlement. Without embarking on a letter-by-letter discussion of the status of the fee waiver in the bargaining, it is clear that petitioners’ proposals uniformly included fee waivers while respondents’ almost always did not. Paragraph 25 of the settlement agreement provides: “Plaintiffs and defendants shall each bear their own costs and attorney’s fees thus far incurred, if so approved by the Court.” App. 104. In addition, the entire settlement agreement was conditioned on the District Court’s approval of the waiver provision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). See nn. 7 and 8, infra. Johnson’s oral presentation to the District Court reads in full as follows: “In other words, an attorney like myself can be put in the position of either negotiating for his client or negotiating for his attorney’s fees, and I think that that is pretty much the situation that occurred in this instance. “I was forced, because of what I perceived to be a result favorable to the plaintiff class, a result that I didn’t want to see jeopardized by a trial or by any other possible problems that might have occurred. And the result is the best result I could have gotten in this court or any other court and it is really a fair and just result in any instance and what should have occurred years earlier and which in fact should have been the case all along. That result I didn’t want to see disturbed on the basis that my attorney’s fees would cause a problem and cause that result to be jeopardized.” App. 90-91. The District Court wrote a letter to respondents’ counsel explaining the conditional nature of petitioners’ settlement offer: “[T]he defendants’ signing of the stipulation was dependent upon the Court’s approval of the finding that it was appropriate to accept a stipulation where plaintiffs waived attorneys fees.... The defendants entered into the stipulation only as a compromise matter with the understanding that they would not pay any attorneys fees, and advised the Court that if there were going to be attorneys fees that they wanted to proceed with trial because they did not think they were required to conform to the stipulation legally. Under those circumstances, it would be entirely inappropriate to leave the stipulation in effect. If you effectively challenge the stipulation, the whole stipulation falls and the matter must be tried by the Court. On the other hand, if you do not successfully challenge the stipulation, then the stipulation and stay is in effect. But until the validity of the stipulation is determined, the Court feels it is entirely unfair to enforce it.” Id., at 115-116. See id., at 112. “Dismissal or Compromise. A class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(e). As we held in Maher v. Gagne, 448 U. S. 122, 129 (1980): “The fact that respondent prevailed through a settlement rather than through litigation does not weaken her claim to fees.” See ibid, (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 5 (1976)). Nor does the fact that the fee award would benefit a legal services corporation justify a refusal to make an award. See New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U. S. 54, 70-71, n. 9 (1980); H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, pp. 5 and 8, n. 16 (1976). That precedent, Mendoza v. United States, 623 F. 2d 1338 (CA9 1980), like the Third Circuit decision in Prandini v. National Tea Co., 557 F. 2d 1015 (1977), which both the Mendoza court and the panel below cited approvingly, instituted a ban on simultaneous negotiations of merits and attorney’s fees issues to prevent attorneys from trading relief benefiting the class for a more generous fee for themselves. See Mendoza v. United States, supra, at 1352-1353; Prandini v. National Tea Co., 557 F. 2d, at 1020-1021. In neither of those cases had the court rejected a part of the settlement and enforced the remainder. On the question whether it is ever proper to put plaintiff’s counsel to the choice of recommending acceptance of a favorable settlement or pursuing a statutory fee award, the decision of the Ninth Circuit below is in accord with the rule prevailing in the Third Circuit, see Prandini v. National Tea Co., 557 F. 2d, at 1021 (not recognizing an exception for “unusual circumstances”); cf. El Club Del Barrio, Inc. v. United Community Corps., 735 F. 2d 98, 101, n. 3 (CA3 1984) (dictum noting applicability of Prandini to fee waivers in holding that such waivers must be explicit), and conflicts with decisions in four other Circuits holding that civil rights plaintiffs are free to waive fee awards as part of an overall settlement, at least in some circumstances, see Moore v. National Assn. of Security Dealers, Inc., 246 U. S. App. D. C. 114, 125, 762 F. 2d 1093, 1104 (1985) (opinion of Mac-Kinnon, J.); id., at 134-135, 762 F. 2d, at 1113-1114 (Wald, J., concurring in judgment); Lazar v. Pierce, 757 F. 2d 435, 438-439 (CAl 1985); Gram v. Bank of Louisiana, 691 F. 2d 728, 730 (CA5 1982) (dictum); Chicano Police Officer’s Assn. v. Stover, 624 F. 2d 127, 132 (CA10 1980). See Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U. S. 424, 437 (1976); United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U. S. 244, 251 (1968); Railway Employees v. Wright, 364 U. S. 642, 651 (1961); United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U. S. 106, 114 (1932). Cf. Firefighters v. Stotts, 467 U. S. 561, 592 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 184, Comment a, p. 30 (1981) (“If the performance as to which the agreement is unenforceable [as against public policy] is an essential part of the agreed exchange,... the entire agreement [is] unenforceable”); E. Farnsworth, Contracts § 5.8, p. 361 (1982). Generally speaking, a lawyer is under an ethical obligation to exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of his client; he must not allow his own interests, financial or otherwise, to influence his professional advice. ABA, Model Code of Professional Responsibility EC 5-1, 5-2 (as amended 1980); ABA, Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7(b), 2.1 (as amended 1984). Accordingly, it is argued that an attorney is required to evaluate a settlement offer on the basis of his client’s interest, without considering his own interest in obtaining a fee; upon recommending settlement, he must abide by the client’s decision whether or not to accept the offer, see Model Code of Professional Responsibility EC 7-7 to EC 7-9; Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a). Even state bar opinions holding it unethical for defendants to request fee waivers in exchange for relief on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims are bottomed ultimately on § 1988. See District of Columbia Bar Legal Ethics Committee, Op. No. 147, reprinted in 113 Daily Wash. L. Rep. 389, 394-395 (1985); Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the New York City Bar Association, Op. No. 82-80, p. 1 (1985); id., at 4-5 (dissenting opinion); Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the New York City Bar Association, Op. No. 80-94, reprinted in 36 Record of N. Y. C. B. A. 507, 508-511 (1981); Grievance Commission of Board of Overseers of the Bar of Maine, Op. No. 17, reprinted in Advisory Opinions of the Grievance Commission of the Board of Overseers of the Bar 69-70 (1983). For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that the bar is not of one mind on this ethical judgment. See Final Subcommittee Report of the Committee on Attorney’s Fees of the Judicial Conference of the United State Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, reprinted in 13 Bar Rep. 4, 6 (1984) (declining to adopt flat rule forbidding waivers of statutory fees). Cf. State Bar of Georgia, Op. No. 39, reprinted in 10 Ga. St. Bar News No. 2, p. 5 (1984) (rejecting the reasoning of the Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the New York City Bar Association in the context of lump-sum settlement offers for the reason, among others, that “[t]o force a defendant into proposing a settlement offer wherein plaintiffs!’] statutory attorney fees are not negotiated... [means that] meaningful settlement proposals might never be made. Such a situation undeniably... is inimical to the resolution of disputes between parties”). See Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the New York City Bar Association, Op. No. 80-94, reprinted in 36 Record of N. Y. C. B. A., at 508 (“Defense counsel thus are in a uniquely favorable position when they condition settlement on the waiver of the statutory fee: they make a demand for a benefit which the plaintiff’s lawyer cannot resist as a matter of ethics and which the plaintiff will not resist due to lack of interest”). Accord, District of Columbia Bar Legal Ethics Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

F

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. In these cases, we review an application of the so-called “zone of interest” standing test that was first articulated in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150 (1970). Concluding that respondent is a proper litigant, we also review, and reverse, a judgment that the Comptroller of the Currency exceeded his authority in approving the applications of two national banks for the establishment or purchase of discount brokerage subsidiaries. I In 1982, two national banks, Union Planter's National Bank of Memphis (Union Planters) and petitioner Security Pacific National Bank of Los Angeles (Security Pacific), applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to open offices that would offer discount brokerage services to the pub-lie. Union Planters proposed to acquire an existing discount brokerage operation, and Security Pacific sought to establish an affiliate named Discount Brokerage. Both banks proposed to offer discount brokerage services not only at their branch offices but also at other locations inside and outside of their home States. In passing on Security Pacific’s application, the Comptroller was faced with the question whether the operation of Discount Brokerage would violate the National Bank Act’s branching provisions. Those limitations, enacted as §§ 7 and 8 of the McFadden Act, 44 Stat. 1228, as amended, are codified at 12 U. S. C. § 36 and 12 U. S. C. § 81. Section 81 limits “the general business” of a national bank to its headquarters and any “branches” permitted by §36. Section 36(c) provides that a national bank is permitted to branch only in its home State and only to the extent that a bank of the same State is permitted to branch under state law. The term “branch” is defined at 12 U. S. C. § 36(f) “to include any branch bank, branch office, branch agency, additional office, or any branch place of business ... at which deposits are received, or checks paid, or money lent.” The Comptroller concluded that “the non-chartered offices at which Discount Brokerage will offer its services will not constitute branches under the McFadden Act because none of the statutory branching functions will be performed there.” App. D to Pet. for Cert, in No. 85-971, p. 39a. He explained that although Discount Brokerage would serve as an intermediary for margin lending, loan approval would take place at chartered Security Pacific offices, so that Discount Brokerage offices would not be lending money within the meaning of § 36(f). Likewise, although Discount Brokerage would maintain, and pay interest on, customer balances created as an incident of its brokerage business, the Comptroller concluded that these accounts differ sufficiently in nature from ordinary bank accounts that Discount Brokerage would not be engaged in receiving deposits. He further observed that treating offices conducting brokerage activities as branches under § 36(f) would be inconsistent with the “long-standing and widespread” practice of banks’ operating nonbranch offices dealing in United States Government or municipal securities. Id., at 44a. Accordingly, the Comptroller approved Security Pacific’s application. Respondent, a trade association representing securities brokers, underwriters, and investment bankers, brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Among other things, respondent contended that bank discount brokerage offices are branches within the meaning of § 36(f) and thus are subject to the geographical restrictions imposed by § 36(c). The Comptroller disputed this position on the merits and also argued that respondent lacks standing because it is not within the zone of interests protected by the McFadden Act. The Comptroller contended that Congress passed the McFadden Act not to protect securities dealers but to establish competitive equality between state and national banks. The District Court, relying on Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150 (1970), held that respondent has standing and rejected the Comptroller’s submission that national banks may offer discount brokerage services at nonbranch locations. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed in a brief per curiam opinion, 244 U. S. App. D. C. 419, 758 F. 2d 739 (1985), and rehearing en banc was denied, with three judges dissenting. 247 U. S. App. D. C. 42, 765 F. 2d 1196 (1985). The Comptroller sought review by petition for certiorari, as did Security Pacific. We granted both petitions, and consolidated the cases. 475 U. S. 1044 (1986). We now affirm the judgment that respondent has standing, but reverse on the merits. I — I f — < In Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, supra, the association challenged a ruling by the Comptroller allowing national banks, as part of their incidental powers under 12 U. S. C. § 24 Seventh, to make data-processing services available to other banks and to bank customers. There was no serious question that the data processors had sustained an injury in fact by virtue of the Comptroller’s action. Rather, the question, which the Court described as one of standing, was whether the data processors should be heard to complain of that injury. The matter was basically one of interpreting congressional intent, and the Court looked to § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 702, which “grants standing to a person ‘aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.’” 397 U. S., at 153. The Court of Appeals had interpreted § 702 as requiring either the showing of a “legal interest,” as that term had been narrowly construed in our earlier cases, e. g., Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U. S. 118, 137 (1939), or alternatively as requiring an explicit provision in the relevant statute permitting suit by any party “adversely affected or aggrieved.” See Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 406 F. 2d 837 (CA8 1969). This Court was unwilling to take so narrow a view of the APA’s “‘generous review provisions,'” 397 U. S., at 156 (quoting Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U. S. 48, 51 (1955)), and stated that in accordance with previous decisions the Act should be construed “not grudgingly but as serving a broadly remedial purpose,” ibid, (citing Shaughnessy, supra, and Rusk v. Cort, 369 U. S. 367, 379-380 (1962)). Accordingly, the data processors could be “within that class of ‘aggrieved’ persons who, under § 702, are entitled to judicial review of ‘agency action/” 397 U. S., at 157, even though the National Bank Act itself has no reference to aggrieved persons, and, for that matter, no review provision whatsoever. It was thought, however, that Congress, in enacting §702, had not intended to allow suit by every person suffering injury in fact. What was needed was a gloss on the meaning of §702. The Court supplied this gloss by adding to the requirement that the complainant be “adversely affected or aggrieved,” i. e., injured in fact, the additional requirement that “the interest sought to be protected by the complainant [be] arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question.” Id., at 153. The Court concluded that the data processors were arguably within the zone of interests established by §4 of the Bank Service Corporation Act of 1962, 76 Stat. 1132, 12 U. S. C. § 1864, which forbids bank service corporations to “engage in any activity other than the performance of bank services for banks.” See 397 U. S., at 155. In so holding, the Court relied on a brief excerpt from the legislative history of § 4 indicating that Congress intended to enforce adherence to “the accepted public policy which strictly limits banks to banking.” Ibid, (internal quotations omitted). The data processors were therefore permitted to litigate the validity of the Comptroller’s ruling. The “zone of interest” formula in Data Processing has not proved self-explanatory, but significant guidance can nonetheless be drawn from that opinion. First. The Court interpreted the phrase “a relevant statute” in § 702 broadly; the data processors were alleging violations of 12 U. S. C. § 24 Seventh, see 397 U. S., at 157, n. 2, yet the Court relied on the legislative history of a much later statute, §4 of the Bank Service Corporation Act of 1962, in holding that the data processors satisfied the “zone of interest” test. Second. The Court approved the “trend . . . toward [the] enlargement of the class of people who may protest administrative action.” 397 U. S., at 154. At the same time, the Court implicitly recognized the potential for disruption inherent in allowing every party adversely affected by agency action to seek judicial review. The Court struck the balance in a manner favoring review, but excluding those would-be plaintiffs not even “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute . . . .” Id., at 153. The reach of the “zone of interest” test, insofar as the class of potential plaintiffs is concerned, is demonstrated by the subsequent decision in Investment Company Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617 (1971). There, an association of open-end investment companies and several individual investment companies sought, among other things, review of a Comptroller’s regulation that authorized banks to operate collective investment funds. The companies alleged that the regulation violated the Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933, which prohibits banks from underwriting or issuing securities. See 12 U. S. C. §24 Seventh. The Comptroller urged that the plaintiffs lacked standing, to which the Court responded that plaintiffs not only suffered actual injury but, as in Data Processing, suffered injury from the competition that Congress had arguably legislated against by limiting the activities available to national banks. Discount brokers execute trades on behalf of their customers but do not offer investment advice. As a result, the commissions they charge are substantially lower than those charged by full-service brokers. See Securities Industries Assn. v. Board of Governors, FRS, 468 U. S. 207, 209, n. 2 (1984). The Comptroller relied primarily on the fact that banks publicly solicit deposits and use deposited funds in lending, while credit balances maintained by brokers are not, as such, directly solicited from the public, and are subject to regulatory restrictions regarding use by brokers. See the Securities Investor Protection Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78aaa et seq. (restricting advertising, promotional, and selling practices of brokers regarding interest-bearing free credit balances); 17 CFR § 240.15c3-2 (1986) (regulating the use of credit balances by brokers). Although the Comptroller believed that § 36(f) should be read narrowly to define “branch” only with reference to receiving deposits, making loans, and cashing checks, he recognized that there is authority supporting a broader reading. In St. Louis County National Bank v. Mercantile Trust Company National Assn., 548 F. 2d 716 (CA8 1976), cert. denied, 433 U. S. 909 (1977), a trust office operated by a national bank was held to be a branch. While disagreeing with this holding, the Comptroller took the position that it “should at the very least be limited to those dealings with the public requiring a specialized banking or similar license.” App. D to Pet. for Cert, in No. 85-971, pp. 43a-44a. A month later, the Comptroller approved without comment the application of Union Planters to acquire an existing brokerage firm. App. E to Pet. for Cert. in No. 85-971, p. 47a. Respondent also contended that national banks are entirely prohibited from offering discount brokerage services by the Glass-Steagall Act, 12 U. S. C. §24 (1982 ed. and Supp. III); 12 U. S. C. §§78, 377, 378. This contention was rejected by the District Court, a holding that is not before us. The Comptroller also argued unsuccessfully that respondent could show no injury, and thus had not presented the court with a “case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III. The Comptroller has since abandoned this argument. The dissenting judge argued that there was no standing, as he did in dissenting, with two other judges, from the denial of en bane rehearing. In his view, the purpose of the McFadden Act is to establish competitive equality between national and state banks as regards branching, and while “state banks (and state banking commissions) are obviously within the zone of interests protected by the statute,. . . the brokerage houses suing in the present case are no more within it than are businesses competing for the parking spaces that an unlawful branch may occupy.” 247 U. S. App. D. C., at 43, 765 F. 2d, at 1197. The dissenter also argued that the indefinite language of § 36(f) “presents precisely the situation in which our deference to the agency should be at its height” id., at 44, 765 F. 2d, at 1198, and concluded that the Comptroller’s construction of the statute “cannot by any means be considered unreasonable” and therefore should be affirmed if respondent is held to have standing. Ibid. “Congress can, of course, resolve the question [of standing] one way or another, save as the requirements of Article III dictate otherwise.” 397 U. S., at 154. Section 402(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 402(b), is an example of a statute granting an explicit right of review to all persons adversely affected or aggrieved by particular agency actions (there, licensing actions by the Federal Communications Commission). See generally FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U. S. 470 (1940). We have most recently reaffirmed this liberal reading of the review provisions of the APA in Japan Whaling Assn. v. American Cetacean Society, 478 U. S. 221 (1986). There, the Cetacean Society sought judicial review of the Secretary of Commerce’s refusal to carry out his alleged duty, under the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen’s Protective Act of 1967, to certify Japan for taking actions that diminished the effectiveness of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The Secretary contended, among other things, that the Cetacean Society had no private cause of action under the Pelly Amendment. We rejected this argument, holding that respondents had a right of action “expressly created by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which states that ‘final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court [is] subject to judicial review,’ § 704, at the behest of‘[a] person . . . adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action.’ ” Id., at 231, n. 4. We held further, with citations to such previous decisions as Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340 (1984), that “[a] separate indication of congressional intent to make agency action reviewable under the APA is not necessary; instead, the rule is that the cause of action for review of such action is available absent some clear and convincing evidence of legislative intention to preclude review.” Japan Whaling, supra, at 231, n. 4. Subsequently, in Arnold Tours, Inc. v. Camp, 400 U. S. 45 (1970), the Court held that, under the rationale of Data Processing, travel agents have standing to challenge the Comptroller’s decision to allow banks, pursuant to their incidental powers under 12 U. S. C. § 24 Seventh, to provide travel services to their customers. The Court found it of no moment that Congress never specifically focused on the interests of travel agents in enacting §4 of the Bank Service Corporation Act. 400 U. S., at 46, and n. 3. The zone test has also been the subject of considerable scholarly writing, much of it critical. See, e. g., 4 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 24:17 (2d ed. 1983); Stewart, The Reformation of American Administrative Law, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 1667, 1731-1734 (1975); Albert, Standing to Challenge Administrative Action: An Inadequate Surrogate for Claim for Relief, 83 Yale. L. J. 425 (1974); Scott, Standing in the Supreme Court — A Functional Analysis, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 645 (1973); Jaffe, Standing Again, 84 Harv. L. Rev. 633, 634, and n. 9 (1971). The Court’s concern was to ensure that the data processors’ association would be “a reliable private attorney general to litigate the issues of the public interest in the present case.” 397 U. S., at 154. The language quoted is directed most immediately to the inquiry whether sufficient concrete adversity existed in the case to satisfy Article III. However, the concern that the plaintiff be “reliable” carries over to the “zone of interest” inquiry, which seeks to exclude those plaintiffs whose suits are more likely to frustrate than to further statutory objectives. The Court stated: “This contention [that plaintiffs lack standing] is foreclosed by Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150. There we held that companies that offered data processing services to the general business community-had standing to seek judicial review of a ruling by the Comptroller that national banks could make data processing services available to other banks and to bank customers. We held that data processing companies were sufficiently injured by the competition that the Comptroller had authorized to create a case or controversy. The injury to the petitioners in the instant ease is indistinguishable. We also concluded that Congress did not intend ‘to preclude judicial review of administrative rulings by the Comptroller as to the legitimate scope of activities available to national banks under [the National Bank Act].’ 397 U. S., at 157. This is precisely the review that the petitioners have sought in this case. Finally, we concluded that Congress had arguably legislated against the competition that the petitioners sought to challenge, and from which flowed their injury. We noted that whether Congress had indeed prohibited such competition was a question for the merits. In the discussion that follows in the balance of this opinion we deal with the merits of petitioners’ contentions and conclude that Congress did legislate against the competition that the petitioners challenge. There can be no real question, therefore, of the petitioners’ standing in the light of the Data Processing case. See also Arnold, Tours v. Camp, 400 U. S. 45.” 401 U. S., at 620-621. In the discussion of the merits that followed, the Court interpreted the Glass-Steagall Act as reflecting “a [congressional] determination that policies of competition, convenience, or expertise which might otherwise support the entry of commercial banks into the investment banking business were outweighed by the ‘hazards’ and ‘financial dangers’ that arise when commercial banks engage in the activities proscribed by the Act.” Id., at 630 (footnote omitted). The Court described these “hazards” primarily in terms of the danger to banks of making imprudent investments or risky loans, as well as the dangers of possible loss of public confidence in banks and the danger to the economy as a whole of speculation fueled by bank loans for investment purposes. Id., at 629-634. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE By its decision of February 26, 1985, the Court overruled the exception of the United States to the Report of its Special Master herein insofar as it challenged the Master’s determination that the whole Mississippi Sound constitutes historic inland waters, and, to this extent, adopted the Master’s recommendations and confirmed his Report. On March 1, 1988, the Court resolved the disagreement between the United States and Mississippi as to that portion of the Mississippi coastline at issue in the above-captioned litigation and directed the parties to submit to the Special Master a proposed appropriate decree defining the claims of Alabama and Mississippi with respect to Mississippi Sound. The parties have agreed on and submitted to the Special Master a proposed decree in accordance with the Court’s decision of March 1, 1988. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: 1. For the purposes of the Court’s Decree herein dated December 12, 1960, 364 U. S. 502 (defining the boundary line between the submerged lands of the United States and the submerged lands of the States bordering the Gulf of Mexico), the coastline of the States of Alabama and Mississippi shall be determined on the basis that the whole of Mississippi Sound constitutes state inland waters; 2. For the purposes of said Decree of December 12, 1960, the coastline of Alabama includes a straight line from a point on the western tip of Dauphin Island where X = 238690 and Y = 84050 in the Alabama plane coordinate system, west zone, and X = 659783.79 and Y = 204674.56 in the Mississippi plane coordinate system, east zone, to a point on the eastern tip of Petit Bois Island where X = 215985 and Y = 77920 in the Alabama plane coordinate system, west zone, and X = 637152.89 and Y = 198279.25 in the Mississippi plane coordinate system, east zone, so far as said line lies on the Alabama side of the Alabama-Mississippi boundary. 3. For the purposes of said Decree of December 12, 1960, the coastline of Mississippi includes the following: (a) That portion of the straight line described in paragraph 2, above, lying on the Mississippi side of Alabama-Mississippi boundary; (b) The baseline delimiting Petit Bois Island determined by the following points in the Mississippi plane coordinate system, east zone: E. COORD. N. COORD. X Y A POINT AT 636103.06 197409.43 A POINT AT 635730.88 197167.57 A POINT AT 635197.10 196848.81 A POINT AT 634824.92 196606.95 A POINT AT 634494.81 196403.07 A LINE FROM 634116.89 196223.65 633487.70 195977.80 THROUGH 632600.10 195607.60 THROUGH 631541.99 195143.47 THROUGH E. COORD N. COORD. X Y THROUGH 630508.20 194904.30 THROUGH 629479.90 194591.90 THROUGH 628525.00 194321.70 THROUGH 628401.73 194306.69 THROUGH 628036.92 194289.93 THROUGH 627476.60 194182.00 THROUGH 626488.60 193948.10 THROUGH 625932.59 193802.79 THROUGH 625516.00 193766.90 THROUGH 623861.36 193478.53 THROUGH 622820.50 193454.10 THROUGH 621823.80 193356.00 THROUGH 620825.20 193257.90 THROUGH 619847.89 193131.55 THROUGH 618538.77 193268.72 THROUGH 617735.69 193531.82 THROUGH 616497.05 194054.83 THROUGH 615577.50 194348.40 THROUGH 614799.01 194527.45 THROUGH 613600.50 194763.40 THROUGH 612681.90 194895.50 THROUGH 611818.33 195012.55 THROUGH 611021.34 195183.22 THROUGH 610184.77 195530.92 THROUGH 609391.80 195685.30 THROUGH 608419.90 195927.80 THROUGH 607720.29 196127.06 THROUGH 607475.00 196239.30 THROUGH 606247.30 196809.81 THROUGH 605675.10 197160.10 THROUGH 604270.15 197849.15 THROUGH 603527.87 198470.45 TO 603006.58 199221.84; (c) A straight line from a point on the western tip of Petit Bois Island from X = 602984.74 and Y = 199379.08 in the Mississippi plane coordinate system, east zone, to a point on the eastern tip of Horn Island where X = 586698.88 and Y = 203743.22 in the same coordinate system; (d) The baseline delimiting Horn Island determined by the following points in the Mississippi plane coordinate system, east zone: E. COORD. N. COORD. X Y A POINT AT 586085.00 203413.20 A POINT AT 585408.00 202870.40 A LINE FROM 584539.17 202442.95 THROUGH 583521.30 202226.50 THROUGH 582523.70 201911.10 THROUGH 581217.11 201559.05 THROUGH 580172.00 201476.80 THROUGH 578707.40 201327.16 THROUGH 577716.60 201360.70 THROUGH 576762.47 201326.88 THROUGH 575057.04 201581.88 THROUGH 573405.12 201965.02 THROUGH 571199.22 202261.66 THROUGH 570919.81 202425.88 THROUGH 568628.38 202769.01 THROUGH 566917.90 203142.60 THROUGH 564973.10 203501.30 THROUGH 563121.32 203819.44 THROUGH 560958.00 204028.60 THROUGH 558940.70 204238.50 THROUGH 557048.68 204283.26 THROUGH 554930.20 204403.10 TO 553435.61 204348.41 A LINE FROM 551970.97 204538.74 THROUGH 551379.95 204841.79 E. COORD. N. COORD. X Y THROUGH 550663.93 205145.88 THROUGH 549562.53 205270.46 THROUGH 547945.52 205663.99 THROUGH 546875.90 206276.41 THROUGH 545696.10 206670.80 THROUGH 544396.00 207134.79 THROUGH 542861.16 207556.77 THROUGH 540851.48 208393.15 THROUGH 539596.30 208786.30 TO 538818.50 209086.77 A LINE FROM 536831.40 209354.10 THROUGH 535469.11 209055.01 THROUGH 533599.69 208590.63 THROUGH 532440.54 208312.06 THROUGH 530361.80 207949.10 THROUGH 528785.77 207676.76 THROUGH 527430.00 207570.30 THROUGH 526475.92 207467.20 THROUGH 525672.63 207540.27 THROUGH 522928.20 208196.10 THROUGH 521336.78 208496.86 THROUGH 520062.60 208576.80 THROUGH 519137.96 208626.07 TO 518074.58 209136.06; (e) A straight line from a point on the western tip of Horn Island where X = 517785.04 and Y - 209525.13 in the same coordinate system to a point on the eastern tip of the most easterly segment of Ship Island where X = 486293.70 and Y = 208216.03 in the same coordinate system; (f) The baseline delimiting the most easterly segment of Ship Island determined by the following points in the Mississippi plane coordinate system, east zone: E. COORD. N. COORD. X Y A LINE FROM 485802.92 207647.85 484179.80 206426.60 THROUGH 482568.66 205272.72 THROUGH 480844.60 204246.60 THROUGH 479440.58 203436.29 THROUGH 478229.70 202788.30 THROUGH 476458.71 201921.54 THROUGH 475542.00 201634.30 THROUGH 475218.46 201529.55; TO (g) A straight line from a point on the western tip of the easterly segment of Ship Island where X = 474673.81 and Y = 201505.68 in the same coordinate system to a point on the eastern end of the westerly segment of Ship Island where X = 469644.55 and Y = 200646.86 in the same coordinate system; (h) The baseline delimiting the most westerly segment of Ship Island determined by the following points in the Mississippi plane coordinate system, east zone: E. COORD. N. COORD. X Y A LINE FROM 468942.08 200226.18 468023.27 199707.98 THROUGH 466932.10 198967.80 THROUGH 465591.05 198219.69 THROUGH 464163.11 197420.58 THROUGH 463004.481 196885.896; TO 4. That portion of the Mississippi baseline west of the westerly segment of Ship Island determined above is the subject of a separate decree resolving Mississippi v. United States, Original No. 113. 5. The baseline described in Paragraphs 2 and 3 above shall be, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, fixed as of the date of this decree, and shall from that date no longer be ambulatory. 6. The parties shall bear their own costs of these proceedings; the actual expenses of the Special Master herein and the compensation due him shall be borne half by the United States and half by Mississippi. 7. After his final accounting has been approved and any balance due him has been paid, the Special Master shall be deemed discharged with the thanks of the Court. 8. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as from time to time may be deemed necessary or advisable to effectuate and supplement the decree and the rights of the respective parties. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or formulation of this Supplemental Decree. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

J

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. In Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U. S. 431 (1982), we held that the discharge of a union’s appointed business agents by the union president, following his election over the incumbent for whom the business agents had campaigned, did not violate the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA or Act), 73 Stat. 519, 29 U. S. C. § 401 et seq. The question presented in this case is whether the removal of an elected business agent, in retaliation for statements he made at a union meeting in opposition to a dues increase sought by the union trustee, violated the LMRDA. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the LMRDA protected the business agent from removal under these circumstances. We granted certiorari to address this important issue concerning the internal governance of labor unions, 485 U. S. 958 (1988), and now affirm. I In June 1981, respondent Edward Lynn was elected to a 3-year term as a business representative of petitioner Local 75 of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association (Local), an affiliate of petitioner Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association (International). Lynn was instrumental in organizing fellow members of the Local who were concerned about a financial crisis plaguing the Local. These members, who called themselves the Sheet Metal Club Local 75 (Club),published leaflets that demonstrated, on the basis of Department of Labor statistics, that the Local’s officials were spending far more than the officials of two other sheet metal locals in the area. The Club urged the Local’s officials to reduce expenditures rather than increase dues in order to alleviate the Local’s financial problems. A majority of the Local’s members apparently agreed, for they defeated three successive proposals to increase dues. Following the third vote, in June 1982, the Local’s 17 officials, including Lynn, sent a letter to the International’s general president, requesting that he “immediately take whatever action [is] . . . necessary including, but not limited to, trusteeship to put this local on a sound financial basis.” App. 14. Invoking his authority under the International’s constitution, the general president responded by placing the Local under a trusteeship and by delegating to the trustee, Richard Hawkins, the authority “to supervise and direct” the affairs of the Local, “including, but not limited to, the authority to suspend local union . . . officers, business managers, or business representatives.” Art. 3, §2(c), Constitution and Ritual of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Revised and Amended by Authority of the Thirty-Fifth General Convention, St. Louis, Missouri (1978). Within a month of his appointment, Hawkins decided that a dues increase was needed to rectify the Local’s financial situation. Recognizing that he lacked authority to impose a dues increase unilaterally, Hawkins prepared a proposal to that effect which he submitted to and which was approved by the Local’s executive board. A special meeting was then convened to put the dues proposal to a membership vote. Prior to the meeting, Hawkins advised Lynn that he expected Lynn’s support. Lynn responded that he first wanted a commitment to reduce expenditures, which Hawkins declined to provide. Lynn thus spoke in opposition to the dues proposal at the special meeting. The proposal was defeated by the members in a secret ballot vote. Five days later, Hawkins notified Lynn that he was being removed “indefinitely” from his position as business representative specifically because of his outspoken opposition to the dues increase. App. 20. After exhausting his intraunion remedies, Lynn brought suit in District Court under § 102 of the LMRDA, 29 U. S. C. §412, claiming, inter alia, that his removal from office violated § 101(a)(2), the free speech provision of Title I of the LMRDA, 29 U. S. C. § 411(a)(2). The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners, reasoning that, under Finnegan v. Leu, supra, “[a] union member’s statutory right to oppose union policies affords him no protection against dismissal from employment as an agent of the union because of such opposition.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 804 F. 2d 1472 (1986). The court held that Finnegan did not control where the dismissed union employee was an elected, rather than an appointed, official because removal of the former “can only impede the democratic governance of the union.” 804 F. 2d, at 1479. “Allowing the removal of an elected official for exercising his free speech rights,” the court explained, “would in effect nullify a member’s right to vote for a candidate whose views he supports,” id., at 1479, n. 7, and would impinge on the official’s right to “spea[k]. . . for himself as a member” of the union. Id., at 1479. The court also rejected the contention that Lynn’s removal was valid because it was carried out under the trusteeship, stating that, “while a trustee may remove an elected local officer for financial misconduct, or incompetence, it may not do so in retaliation for the exercise of a right protected by the LMRDA, such as free speech.” Id., at 1480 (citations omitted). II The LMRDA “was the product of congressional concern with widespread abuses of power by union leadership.” Finnegan, 456 U. S., at 435. The major reform bills originally introduced in the Senate, as well as the bill ultimately reported out of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S. 1555, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959), dealt primarily with disclosure requirements, elections, and trusteeships. The legislation that evolved into Title I of the LMRDA, the “Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations,” was adopted as an amendment on the Senate floor by “legislators [who] feared that the bill did not go far enough because it did not provide general protection to union members who spoke out against the union leadership.” Steelworkers v. Sadlowski, 457 U. S. 102, 109 (1982). “[D]esigned to guarantee every member equal voting rights, rights of free speech and assembly, and a right to sue,” ibid., the amendment was “aimed at enlarged protection for members of unions paralleling certain rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.” Finnegan, 456 U. S., at 435. In providing such protection, Congress sought to further the basic objective of the LMRDA: “ensuring that unions [are] democratically governed and responsive to the will of their memberships.” Id., at 436; see also Reed v. Transportation Union, ante, at 325; Sadlowski, supra, at 112. We considered this basic objective in Finnegan, where several members of a local union who held staff positions as business agents were discharged by the local’s newly elected president. The business agents had been appointed by the incumbent president and had openly supported him in his unsuccessful reelection campaign. They subsequently sought relief under § 102 of the LMRDA, claiming that discharge from their appointed positions constituted an “infringement” of their free speech and equal voting rights as guaranteed by Title I. We held that the business agents could not establish a violation of § 102 because their claims were inconsistent with the LMRDA’s “overriding objective” of democratic union governance. 456 U. S., at 441. Permitting a victorious candidate to appoint his own staff did not frustrate that objective; rather, it ensured a union’s “responsiveness to the mandate of the union election.” Ibid. We thus concluded that the LMRDA did not “restrict the freedom of an elected union leader to choose a staff whose views are compatible with his own.” Ibid. In rejecting the business agents’ claim, we did not consider whether the retaliatory removal of an elected official violates the LMRDA and, if so, whether it is significant that the removal is carried out under a validly imposed trusteeship. It is to these questions that we now turn. A Petitioners argue that Lynn’s Title I rights were not “infringed” for purposes of § 102 because Lynn, like other members of the Local, was not prevented from attending the special meeting, expressing his views on Hawkins’ dues proposal, or casting his vote, and because he remains a member of the Local. Under this view, Lynn’s status as an elected, rather than an appointed, official is essentially immaterial and the loss of union employment cannot amount to a Title I violation. This argument is unpersuasive. In the first place, we acknowledged in Finnegan that the business agents’ Title I rights had been interfered with, albeit indirectly, because the agents had been forced to choose between their rights and their jobs. See id., at 440, 442. This was so even though the business agents were not actually prevented from exercising their Title I rights. The same is true here. Lynn was able to attend the special meeting, to express views in opposition to Hawkins’ dues proposal, and to cast his vote. In taking these actions, Lynn “was exercising . . . membership right[s] protected by section 101(a).” 804 F. 2d, at 1479. Given that Lynn was removed from his post as a direct result of his decision to express disagreement with Hawkins’ dues proposal at the special meeting, and that his removal presumably discouraged him from speaking out in the future, Lynn paid a price for the exercise of his membership rights. This is not, of course, the end of the analysis. Whether such interference with Title I rights gives rise to a cause of action under § 102 must be judged by reference to the LMRDA’s basic objective: “to ensure that unions [are] democratically governed, and responsive to the will of the union membership as expressed in open, periodic elections.” Finnegan, 456 U. S., at 441. In Finnegan, this goal was furthered when the newly elected union president discharged the appointed staff of the ousted incumbent. Indeed, the basis for the Finnegan holding was the recognition that the newly elected president’s victory might be rendered meaningless if a disloyal staff were able to thwart the implementation of his programs. While such patronage-related discharges had some chilling effect on the free speech rights of the business agents, we found this concern outweighed by the need to vindicate the democratic choice made by the union electorate. The consequences of the removal of an elected official are much different. To begin with, when an elected official like Lynn is removed from his post, the union members are denied the representative of their choice. Indeed, Lynn’s removal deprived the membership of his leadership, knowledge, and advice at a critical time for the Local. His removal, therefore, hardly was “an integral part of ensuring a union administration’s responsiveness to the mandate of the union election.” Ibid.; see also Wirtz v. Hotel Employees, 391 U. S. 492, 497 (1968). Furthermore, the potential chilling effect on Title I free speech rights is more pronounced when elected officials are discharged. Not only is the fired official likely to be chilled in the exercise of his own free speech rights, but so are the members who voted for him. See Hall v. Cole, 412 U. S. 1, 8 (1973). Seeing Lynn removed from his post just five days after he led the fight to defeat yet another dues increase proposal, other members of the Local may well have concluded that one challenged the union’s hierarchy, if at all, at one’s peril. This is precisely what Congress sought to prevent when it passed the LMRDA. “It recognized that democracy would be assured only if union members are free to discuss union policies and criticize the leadership without fear of reprisal.” Sadlowski, 457 U. S., at 112. We thus hold that Lynn’s retaliatory removal stated a cause of action under § 102. B Petitioners next contend that, even if the removal of an elected official for the exercise of his Title I rights ordinarily states a cause of action under § 102, a different result obtains here because Lynn was removed during a trusteeship lawfully imposed under Title III of the LMRDA, 73 Stat. 530-532, 29 U. S. C. §§461-466. We disagree. In the first place, we find nothing in the language of the LMRDA or its legislative history to suggest that Congress intended Title I rights to fall by the wayside whenever a trusteeship is imposed. Had Congress contemplated such a result, we would expect to find some discussion of it in the text of the LMRDA or its legislative history. Given Congress’ silence on this point, a trustee’s authority under Title III ordinarily should be construed in a manner consistent with the protections provided in Title I. See McDonald v. Oliver, 525 F. 2d 1217, 1229 (CA5), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 817 (1976); United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners v. Brown, 343 F. 2d 872, 882-883 (CA10 1965); United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners v. Dale, 118 LRRM 3160, 3167 (CD Cal. 1985). Whether there are any circumstances under which a trustee acting pursuant to Title III can override Title I free speech rights is a question we need not confront. Section 101(a)(3) of Title I, 29 U. S. C. § 411(a)(3), guarantees to the members of a local union the right to vote on any dues increase, and, as petitioners conceded at oral argument, this critical Title I right does not vanish with the imposition of a trusteeship. Tr. of Oral. Arg. 5. A trustee seeking to restore the financial stability of a local union through a dues increase thus is required to seek the approval of the union’s members. In order to ensure that the union members’ democratic right to decide on a dues proposal is meaningful, the right to exchange views on the advantages and disadvantages of such a measure must be protected. A trustee should not be able to control the debate over an issue which, by statute, is beyond his control. In the instant case, Lynn’s statements concerning the proposed dues increase were entitled to protection. Petitioners point to nothing in the International’s constitution to suggest that the nature of Lynn’s office changed once the trusteeship was imposed, so that Lynn was obligated to support Hawkins’ positions. Thus, at the special meeting, Lynn was free to express the view apparently shared by a majority of the Local’s members that the best solution to the Local’s financial problems was not an increase in dues, but a reduction in expenditures. Under these circumstances, Hawkins violated Lynn’s Title I rights when he removed Lynn from his post. III For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that Lynn’s removal from his position as business representative constituted a violation of Title I of the LMRDA. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed. Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The Local was dissolved in March 1985. Two other sheet metal locals, not parties below or before this Court, presently have joint responsibility for the Local’s legal obligations. Section 101(a)(2) of the LMRDA, titled “Freedom of Speech and Assembly,” provides: “Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization’s established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.” 73 Stat. 522. Section 102 provides in relevant part: “Any person whose rights secured by the provisions of this title have been infringed by any violation of this title may bring a civil action in a district court of the United States for sueh relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate.” Id., at 523. The dissent argued that “the mere fact that Lynn was an elected officer is not sufficient” to distinguish Finnegan from the instant case, 804 F. 2d, at 1486, because “the injury suffered by Lynn is primarily connected with his status as an officer, not a union member.” Id., at 1487. Title I “was quickly accepted without substantive change by the House.” Furniture Moving Drivers v. Crowley, 467 U. S. 526, 538 (1984); see also Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U. S. 431, 435, n. 4 (1982). The business agents in Finnegan also claimed that their discharge violated § 609 of the LMRDA, 29 U. S. C. § 529, which makes it unlawful for a union or its officials “to fine, suspend, expel, or otherwise discipline any of its members for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of this Act.” 73 Stat. 541. We rejected this claim, holding that “removal from appointive union employment is not within the scope of those union sanctions explicitly prohibited by §609.” 456 U. S., at 439. Lynn's complaint makes reference to §609, App. 8, but the Court of Appeals’ analysis of his Title I claim is limited to a discussion of § 102. Lynn’s § 609 claim is not before the Court, nor are the other claims rejected by the lower courts. There is no suggestion that Lynn’s speech in opposition to the dues increase contravened any obligation properly imposed upon him as an elected business agent of the Local. In reaching this conclusion, we reject petitioners’ contention that a union official must establish that his firing was part of a systematic effort to stifle dissent within the union in order to state a claim under § 102. Although in Finnegan we noted that a § 102 claim might arise if a union official were dismissed “as ‘part of a purposeful and deliberate attempt... to suppress dissent within the union,’ ” 456 U. S., at 441, quoting Schonfeld v. Penza, 477 F. 2d 899, 904 (CA2 1973), we did not find that this constituted the only situation giving rise to a § 102 claim. We merely stated that we did not have such a case before us, and that we expressed no view as to its proper resolution. 456 U. S., at 441. Likewise, we explicitly reserved the question “whether a different result might obtain in a case involving nonpolicymaking and nonconfidential employees.” Id., at 441, n. 11. The LMRDA’s trusteeship provisions first appeared as Title II of the Kennedy-Ives bill passed by the Senate in June 1958. S. 3974, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. Title II was a response to the findings of the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the.Labor or Management Field, popularly known as the McClellan Committee, which “exposed the details of the sad state of democracy in large sections of the labor movement and provided numerous examples of abuses of the trusteeship power.” Note, Landrum-Griffin and the Trusteeship Imbroglio, 71 Yale L. J. 1460, 1473 (1962). The McClellan Committee found, in particular, that trusteeships were too often “baselessly imposed.” S. Rep. No. 1417, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1958). Title II reappeared in the Kennedy-Ervin bill reported out of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare in the next Congress. S. 1555, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959). The Committee Report accompanying this bill, although recognizing that trusteeships were sometimes necessary, stressed that “labor history and the hearings of the McClellan committee demonstrate that in some instances trusteeships have been used as a means of consolidating the power of corrupt union officers, plundering and dissipating the resources of local unions, and preventing the growth of competing political elements within the organization.” S. Rep. No. 187, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 17 (1959) (emphasis added); see also H. R. Rep. No. 741, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 13 (1959). After the addition of Title I on the Senate floor, there was little discussion in either House of the relationship between Title I and the trusteeship provisions now contained in Title III. This is not surprising. From the time the trusteeship provisions were first proposed in the spring of 1958, congressional attention was directed toward the LMRDA’s more controversial titles, “while the trusteeship title glided quietly though the labyrinthine process from bill to bill with little change and less discussion.” Note, 71 Yale L. J., supra, at 1475. One exception is the debate over an amendment proposed by Senator Dodd to require the approval of the Secretary of Labor before a trusteeship could be imposed. 105 Cong. Rec. 6675-6681 (1959). In successfully opposing this amendment, Senator Morse emphasized the importance of “look[ing] at the trustee section of the bill . . . in the light of the other sections of the hill, and not[ing] what the committee has done by way of setting up democratic procedures to protect the rank and file of the local unions.” Id., at 6678 (emphasis added). As Lynn notes, “the precise scope of a trustee’s power pursuant to Title III, and the nature of the democratic rights of the members that survive a trusteeship, are matters that have engendered little litigation in the lower courts.” Brief for Respondent 31. We thus proceed with caution in this relatively uncharted territory. Section 101(a)(3) of the LMRDA provides in part: “[T]he rates of dues and initiation fees payable by members of any labor organization in effect on the date of enactment of this Act shall not be increased, and no general or special assessment shall be levied upon such members, except— “(A) in the case of a local labor organization, (i) by majority vote by secret ballot of the members in good standing voting at a general or special membership meeting, after reasonable notice of the intention to vote upon such question, or (ii) by majority vote of the members in good standing voting in a membership referendum conducted by secret ballot . . . .” 73 Stat. 522. Lynn’s posttrusteeship status thus was much the same as it was before the trusteeship. We do not address a situation where an international’s constitution provides that, when a trusteeship is imposed, elected officials are required to support the trustee’s policies and thus may occupy a status similar to the appointed officials in Finnegan. Cf. § 101(b), Title I, 73 Stat. 523, 29 U. S. C. § 411(b). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

G

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. On June 5, 1969, Francisco Farkac Klementova entered the United States without declaring to United States Customs one lot of emerald cut stones and one ring. Klementova was indicted, tried, and acquitted of charges of violating 18 U. S. C. § 545 by willfully and knowingly, with intent to defraud the United States, smuggling the articles into the United States without submitting to the required customs procedures. Following the acquittal, the Government instituted a forfeiture action in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, under 18 U. S. C. § 545 and § 497 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 46 Stat. 728, 19 U. S. C. § 1497. Klementova intervened in the proceeding and argued that his acquittal of charges of violating 18 U. S. C. § 545 barred the forfeiture. The District Court held that the forfeiture was barred by collateral estoppel and the Fifth Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that a forfeiture action pursuant to 19 U. S. C. § 1497 was not barred by an acquittal of charges of violating 18 U. S. C. § 545. We grant certiorari, affirm, and thereby resolve a conflict among the circuits as to whether a forfeiture is barred in these circumstances. Collateral estoppel would bar a forfeiture under § 1497 if, in the earlier criminal proceeding, the elements of a § 1497 forfeiture had been resolved against the Government. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 443 (1970). But in this case acquittal on the criminal charge did not necessarily resolve the issues in the forfeiture action. For the Government to secure a conviction under § 545, it must prove the physical act of unlawful importation as well as a knowing and willful intent to defraud the United States. An acquittal on the criminal charge may have involved a finding that the physical act was not done with the requisite intent. Indeed, the court that tried the criminal charge specifically found that the Government had failed to establish intent. To succeed in a forfeiture action under § 1497, on the other hand, the Government need only prove that the property was brought into the United States without the required declaration; the Government bears no burden with respect to intent. Thus, the criminal acquittal may not be regarded as a determination that the property was not unlawfully brought into the United States, and the forfeiture proceeding will not involve an issue previously litigated and finally determined between these parties. Moreover, the difference in the burden of proof in criminal and civil cases precludes application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The acquittal of the criminal charges may have only represented “ 'an adjudication that the proof was not sufficient to overcome all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.’ ” Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S. 391, 397 (1938). As to the issues raised, it does not constitute an adjudication on the preponderance-of-the-evidence burden applicable in civil proceedings. See Murphy v. United States, 272 U. S. 630 (1926); Stone v. United States, 167 U. S. 178 (1897). If for no other reason, the forfeiture is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it involves neither two criminal trials nor two criminal punishments. “Congress may impose both a criminal and a civil sanction in respect to the same act or omission; for the double jeopardy clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense.” Helvering v. Mitchell, supra, at 399. See also United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537 (1943). Forfeiture under § 1497 is a civil sanction. The provision was originally enacted as § 497 of the Tariff Act of 1922, 42 Stat. 964. The Tariff Act of 1930 re-enacted the forfeiture remedy, 46 Stat. 728, and added § 593, 46 Stat. 751, which became 18 U. S. C. § 545. The forfeiture provision fell within Title IY of the Act, which contained the “Administrative Provisions.” Part III of that title, of which § 1497 was a part, dealt with “Ascertainment, Collection, and Recovery of Duties.” Section 545, on the other hand, was part of the “Enforcement Provisions” and became part of the Criminal Code of the United States. The fact that the sanctions were separate and distinct and were contained in different parts of the statutory scheme is relevant in determining the character of the forfeiture. Congress could and did order both civil and criminal sanctions, clearly distinguishing them. There is no reason for frustrating that design. See Helvering v. Mitchell, supra, at 404. The § 1497 forfeiture is intended to aid in the enforcement of tariff regulations. It prevents forbidden merchandise from circulating in the United States, and, by its monetary penalty, it provides a reasonable form of liquidated damages for violation of the inspection provisions and serves to reimburse the Government for investigation and enforcement expenses. In other contexts we have recognized that such purposes characterize remedial rather than punitive sanctions. See id., at 401; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, supra, at 549-550; Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 148, 151-154 (1956). Moreover, it cannot be said that the measure of recovery fixed by Congress in § 1497 is so unreasonable or excessive that it transforms what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, supra, at 154. See Murphy v. United States, supra; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, supra. “Forfeiture of goods or their value and the payment of fixed or variable sums of money are other sanctions which have been recognized as enforcible by civil proceedings .... In spite of their comparative severity, such sanctions have been upheld against the contention that they are essentially criminal and subject to the procedural rules governing criminal prosecutions.” Helvering v. Mitchell, supra, at 400. The question of whether a given sanction is civil or criminal is one of statutory construction.- Id., at 399. It appears that the § 1497 forfeiture is civil and remedial, and, as a result, its imposition is not barred by an acquittal of charges of violating § 545. Affirmed. “Whoever knowingly and willfully, with intent to defraud the United States, smuggles, or clandestinely introduces into the United States any merchandise which should have been invoiced, or makes out or passes, or attempts to pass, through the customhouse any false, forged, or fraudulent invoice, or other document or paper; or “Whoever fraudulently or knowingly imports or brings into the United States, any merchandise contrary to law, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise after importation, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law— “Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. “Proof of defendant’s possession of such goods, unless explained to the satisfaction of the jury, shall be deemed evidence sufficient to authorize conviction for violation of this section. “Merchandise introduced into the United States in violation of this section, or the value thereof, to be recovered from any person described in the first or second paragraph of this section, shall be forfeited to the United States. “The term ‘United States/ as used in this section, shall not include the Philippine Islands, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway Islands, Kingman Reef, Johnston Island, or Guam.” Title 19 U. S. C. § 1497 provides: “Any article not included in the declaration and entry as made, and, before examination of the baggage was begun, not mentioned in writing by such person, if written declaration and entry was required, or orally if written declaration and entry was not required, shall be subject to forfeiture and such person shall be liable to a penalty equal to the value of such article.” In United States v. Two Hundred and One Fifty-Pound Bags of Furazolidone, No. 71-1329 (1971), cert. denied, 405 U. S. 964 (1972), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment on the basis of a previous acquittal of charges of violating § 545 in favor of the owner of property in a forfeiture action commenced by the Government under 18 U. S. C. § 545 and 19 U. S. C. § 1460. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agrees with the view of the Fifth Circuit in the present case. See Leiser v. United States, 234 F. 2d 648, cert. denied, 352 U. S. 893 (1956). We need not, and do not, decide whether an acquittal under § 545 bars a forfeiture under § 545. The judge at the criminal trial specifically stated: “He is, obviously, a sophisticated dealer in emeralds and other jewelry. “I don’t condone nor do I approve, for one minute, what he did in this instance. I think he knew that that jewelry — that that ring and those emeralds should have been declared. “He made a declaration of some cigarettes and some whiskey, several other little odd, meager items there, but I’m not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that he did what he did with the intent to defraud the United States.” The difference in the issues involved in the criminal proceeding, on the one hand, and the forfeiture action, on the other, serves to distinguish Coffey v. United States, 116 U. S. 436 (1886), relied upon by the District Court in the present case. Coffey involved a forfeiture action commenced after an acquittal. This Court noted, in holding the forfeiture barred, that “[t]he information [for forfeiture] is founded on §§3257, 3450 and 3453; and there is no question, on the averments in the answer, that the fraudulent acts and attempts and intents to defraud, alleged in the prior criminal information, and covered by the verdict and judgment of acquittal, embraced all of the acts, attempts and intents averred in the information in this suit.” Id., at 442. The Court specifically distinguished the situation where “a certain intent must be proved to support the indictment, which need not be proved to support the civil action.” Id., at 443. See also Stone v. United States, 167 U. S. 178 (1897). The District Court relied upon the following language in United States v. U. S. Coin & Currency, 401 U. S. 715, 718 (1971): “But as Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 634 (1886), makes clear, 'proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a man’s property by reason of offences committed by him, though they may be civil in form, are in their nature criminal’ for Fifth Amendment purposes.” (Emphasis in United States v. U. S. Coin & Currency.) Section 1497 does not result in a forfeiture by reason of the commission of a criminal offense. A forfeiture results from the act of importation without following customs procedures; no criminal offense, much less a criminal conviction, is required. Cf. id., at 718-722. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U. S. 693 (1965), is likewise inapposite for it dealt with a forfeiture that could not be had without a “determination that the criminal law has been violated.” Id., at 701. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. The question is whether the 1959 acquisition by the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) of the stock and assets of the Rome Cable Corporation (Rome) “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly” in the production and sale of various wire and cable products and accessories within the meaning of § 7 of the Clayton Act. The United States, claiming that § 7 had been violated, instituted this civil suit and prayed for divestiture. The District Court, after a trial, held that there was no violation and dismissed the complaint. 214 F. Supp. 501. The case is here on appeal, 15 U. S. C. § 29; and we noted probable jurisdiction. 375 U. S. 808. I. The initial question concerns the identification of the “line of commerce,” as the term is used in § 7. Aluminum wire and cable (aluminum conductor) is a composite of bare aluminum wire and cable (bare aluminum conductor) and insulated or covered wire and cable (insulated aluminum conductor). These products are designed almost exclusively for use by electric utilities in carrying electric power from generating plants to consumers throughout the country. Copper conductor wire and cable (copper conductor) is the only other product utilized commercially for the same general purpose. Rome produced both copper conductor and aluminum conductor. In 1958 — the year prior to the merger — it produced 0.3% of total industry production of bare aluminum conductor, 4.7% of insulated aluminum conductor, and 1.3% of the broader aluminum conductor line. Alcoa produced no copper conductor. In 1958 it produced 32.5% of the bare aluminum conductor, 11.6% of insulated aluminum conductor, and 27.8% of aluminum conductor. These products, as noted, are most often ' used by operating electrical utilities. Transmission and distribution lines are usually strung above ground, except in heavily congested areas, such as city centers, where they are run underground. Overhead,' where the lines are bare or not heavily insulated, aluminum has virtually displaced copper, except in seacoast areas, as shown by the following table: Percent of Aluminum Conductor in Gross Additions to Overhead Utility Lines. 1950 1955 1959 Transmission Lines (All Bare Conductor)... 74.4% 91.0% 94.4% Distribution Lines: Bare Conductor. 35.5 64.4 79.0 Insulated Conductor. 6.5 51.6 77.2 Total, Transmission and Distribution Lines.. 25.0 60.9 80.1 Underground, where the conductor must be heavily insulated, copper is virtually the only conductor used. In sum, while aluminum conductor dominates the overhead field, copper remains virtually unrivaled in all other conductor applications. The parties agree, and the District Court found, that bare aluminum conductor is a separate line of commerce. The District Court, however, denied that status to the broader aluminum conductor line because it found that insulated aluminum conductor is not an appropriate line of commerce separate and distinct from its copper counterpart. The court said the broad product group cannot result in a line of commerce, since a line of commerce cannot be composed of two parts, one of which independently qualifies as a line of commerce and one of which does not. Admittedly, there is competition between insulated aluminum conductor and its copper counterpart, as the District Court found. Thus in 1959 insulated- copper conductor comprised 22.8% of the gross additions to insulated overhead distribution lines. This is enough to justify grouping aluminum and copper conductors together in a single product market. Yet we conclude, contrary to the District Court, that that degree of competitiveness does not preclude their division for purposes of § 7 into separate submarkets, just as the existence of broad product markets in Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, did not preclude lesser submarkets. Insulated aluminum conductor is so intrinsically inferior to insulated copper conductor that in most applications it has little consumer acceptance. But in the field of overhead distribution it enjoys decisive advantages — its share of total annual installations increasing from 6.5% in 1950 to 77.2% in 1959. In the field of overhead distribution the competition of copper is rapidly decreasing. As the record shows, utilizing a high-cost metal, fabricators of insulated copper conductor are powerless to eliminate the price disadvantage under which they labor and thus can do little to make their product competitive, unless they enter the aluminum field. The price of most insulated aluminum conductors is indeed only 50% to 65% of the price of their copper counterparts; and the comparative installed costs are also generally less. As the District Court found, aluminum and copper conductor prices do not respond to one another. Separation of insulated aluminum conductor from insulated copper conductor and placing it in another sub-market is, therefore, proper. It is not inseparable from its copper equivalent though the class of customers is the. same. The choice between copper and aluminum for overhead distribution does not usually turn on the quality of the respective products, for each does the job equally well. The vital factors are economic considerations. It is said, however, that we should put price aside and Brown Shoe, swpra, is cited as authority. There the contention of the industry was that the District Court had delineated too broadly the relevant submarkets — men’s shoes, women’s shoes, and children’s shoes — and should have subdivided them further. It was argued, for example, that men’s shoes selling below $8.99 were in a different product market from those selling above $9. We declined to make price, particularly such small price differentials, the determinative factor in that market. A purchaser of shoes buys with an eye to his budget, to style, and to quality as well as to price. But here, where insulated aluminum conductor pricewise stands so distinctly apart, to ignore price in determining the relevant line of commerce is to ignore the single, most important, practical factor in the business. The combination of bare and insulated aluminum conductor products into one market or line of commerce seems to us proper. Both types are used for the purpose of conducting electricity and are sold to the same customers, electrical utilities. While the copper conductor does compete with aluminum conductor, each has developed distinctive end uses — aluminum as an overhead' conductor and copper for underground and indoor wiring, applications in which aluminum’s brittleness and larger size render it impractical. And, as we have seen, the price differential further sets them apart. Thus, contrary to the District Court, we conclude (1) that aluminum conductor and copper conductor are separable for the purpose of analyzing the competitive effect of the merger and (2) that aluminum conductor (bare and insulated) is therefore a submarket and for purposes of § 7 a “line of commerce.” II. Taking aluminum conductor as an appropriate “line of commerce” we conclude that the merger violated § 7. Alcoa is a leader in markets in which economic power is highly concentrated. Prior to the end of World War II it was the sole producer of primary aluminum and the sole fabricator of aluminum conductor. It was held in 1945 to have monopolized the aluminum industry in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. See United States v. Aluminum Co., 148 F. 2d 416. Relief was deferred while the United States disposed of its wartime aluminum facilities under a congressional mandate to establish domestic competition in the aluminum industry. As a result of that policy and further federal financing and assistance, five additional companies entered the primary aluminum field so that by 1960 the primary producers showed the following capacity: Aluminum, Ingot Capacity Existing or Under Construction at the End of 1960. [short tons] Company Capacity % of U. S. Aluminum Company of America. 1,025,250 38.6 Reynolds Metals Company. 701,000 26.4 Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 609,500 23.0 Ormet, Inc. 180,000 6.8 Harvey Aluminum. 75,000 2.8 Anaconda Aluminum Company. 65,000 2.4 United States total. 2,655,750 100.0 In 1958 — the year prior to the merger — Alcoa was the leading producer of aluminum conductor, with 27.8% of the market; in bare aluminum conductor, it also led the industry, with 32.5%. Alcoa plus Kaiser controlled 50% of the aluminum conductor market and, with its three leading competitors, more than 76%. Only nine concerns (including Rome with 1.3%) accounted for 95.7% of the output of aluminum conductor. In the narrower market of insulated aluminum conductor, Alcoa was third with 11.6% and Rome was eighth with 4.7%. Five companies controlled 65.4% and four smaller ones, including Rome, added another 22.8%. In other words, the line of commerce showed highly concentrated markets, dominated by a few companies but served also by a small, though diminishing, group of independents. Such decentralization as has occurred resulted from the establishment of a few new companies through federal intervention, not from normal, competitive decentralizing forces. The proposition on which the present case turns was stated in United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 365, n. 42, as follows: “It is no answer that, among the three presently largest firms (First Pennsylvania, PNB, and Girard), there will be no increase in concentration. If this argument were valid, then once a market had become unduly concentrated, further concentration would be legally privileged. On the contrary, if concentration is already great, the importance of preventing even slight increases in concentration and so preserving the possibility of eventual deconcentration is correspondingly great.” The Committee Reports on § 7 show, as respects the Celler-Kefauver amendments in 1950, that the objective was to prevent accretions of power which “are individually so minute as to make it difficult to use the Sherman Act test against them.” S. Rep. No. 1775, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 5. And see H. R. Rep. No. 1191, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3. As the Court stated in Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 323: “Congress used the words ‘may be substantially to lessen competition’ (emphasis supplied), to indicate that its concern was with probabilities, not certainties. Statutes existed for dealing with clear-cut menaces to competition; no statute was sought for dealing with ephemeral possibilities. Mergers with a probable anticompetitive effect were to be proscribed by this Act.” See also United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S., at 362, and United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 376 U. S. 651, 658. The acquisition of Rome added, it is said, only 1.3% to Alcoa’s control of the aluminum conductor market. But in this setting that seems to us reasonably likely to produce a substantial lessening of competition within the meaning of § 7. It is the basic premise of that law that .competition will be most vital “when there are many sellers, none of which has any significant market share.” United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S., at 363. It would seem that the situation in the aluminum industry may be oligopolistic. As that condition develops, the greater is the likelihood that parallel policies of mutual advantage, not competition, will emerge. That tendency may well be thwarted by the presence of small but significant competitors. Though percentagewise Rome may have seemed small in the year prior to the merger., it ranked ninth among all companies and fourth among independents in the aluminum conductor market; and in the insulated aluminum field it ranked eighth and fourth respectively. Furthermore, in the aluminum conductor market, no more than a dozen companies could account for as much as 1 % of industry production in any one of the five years (1955-1959) for which statistics appear in the record. Rome’s competition was therefore substantial. The record shows indeed that Rome was an aggressive competitor. It was a pioneer in aluminum insulation and developed one of the most widely used insulated conductors. Rome had a broad line of high-quality copper wire and cable products in addition to its aluminum conductor business, a special aptitude and skill in insulation, and an active and efficient research and sales organization. The effectiveness of its marketing organization is shown by the fact that after the merger Alcoa made Rome the distributor of its entire conductor line. Preservation of Rome, rather than its absorption by one of the giants, will keep it “as an important competitive factor,” to use the words of S. Rep. No. 1775, supra, p. 3. Rome seems to us the prototype of the small independent that Congress aimed to preserve by § 7. The judgment is reversed and since there must be divestiture, the case is remanded to the District Court for proceedings in conformity with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended by the Celler-Kefauver Antimerger Act, 64 Stat. 1125, 15 U. S. C. § 18, provides in relevant part: “No corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no corporation subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” Transmission lines are the "wholesale” lines which carry current at high voltages to substations. Distribution lines are the “retail” lines which carry current from the substations to the consumers. Cf. United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321, where we held it proper to make commercial banking a line of commerce for purposes of § 7 even though in some services, e. g., the making of small loans, banks compete with other institutions. We said that commercial banks enjoy “such cost advantages as to be insulated within a broad range from substitutes furnished by other institutions.” Id., at 356. And see United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 168 F. Supp. 576, 593; Reynolds Metals Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 309 F. 2d 223, 229; United States v. Corn Products Refining Co., 234 F. 964, 976. The dissent criticizes this grouping of bare and insulated aluminum conductor into one line of commerce. This overlooks the fact that the parties agree, and the District Court found, that bare aluminum conductor and conductor generally (aluminum and copper, bare and insulated) constitute separate lines of commerce. Having concluded above that insulated aluminum conductor and insulated copper conductor are separable even though some interproduct competition exists, the conclusion that aluminum conductor (bare and insulated) is a line of commerce is a logical extension of the District Court’s findings. See the Surplus Property Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 765; United States v. Aluminum Co., 91 F. Supp. 333; United States v. Aluminum Co., 153 F. Supp. 132. Litigation was terminated on June 28, 1957. Ibid. Twelve days later, Alcoa made its first attempt to acquire Rome. The absorption of Rome by Alcoa was one of the five acquisitions by producers of primary aluminum since 1957. In that year Olin Mathieson (a one-half owner of Ormet, Inc.) acquired Southern Electric Corporation, then the largest independent manufacturer of aluminum conductor; and Kaiser acquired the Bristol, Rhode Island, plant of the U. S. Rubber Company, one of the top 10 in the insulated aluminum field. These moves, and the threat they were thought to pose, were specifically identified as factors influencing Alcoa’s 1959 decision to acquire Rome. And it was partly in response to the three prior acquisitions that Reynolds, in 1961, acquired the wire and cable facilities of John A. Roebling’s Sons Division of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, a small fabricator. Finally, in February 1963, too late to be noted in the record below, Aluminium, Ltd., of Canada announced the acquisition of Central Cable Corporation, one of the largest of the independents. As a result of this series of mergers, there now remain only four nonintegrated fabricators of aluminum conductor whose individual shares of total industry production (based on 1959 figures, the latest in the record) amounted to more than 1%. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires us once again to interpret the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) chapter of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-452, Title IX, 84 Stat. 941, as amended, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1961-1968 (1988 ed. and Supp. II). Section 1962(e) makes it unlawful “for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity .. ..” The question presented is whether one must participate in the operation or management of the enterprise itself to be subject to liability under this provision. h — I The Farmer’s Cooperative of Arkansas and Oklahoma, Inc. (Co-Op), began operating in western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma in 1946. To raise money for operating expenses, the Co-Op sold promissory notes payable to the holder on demand. Each year, Co-Op members were elected to serve on its board. The board met monthly but delegated actual management of the Co-Op to a general manager. In 1952, the board appointed Jack White as general manager. In January 1980, White began taking loans from the Co-Op to finance the construction of a gasohol plant by his company, White Flame Fuels, Inc. By the end of 1980, White’s debts to the Co-Op totaled approximately $4 million. In September of that year, White and Gene Kuykendall, who served as the accountant for both the Co-Op and White Flame, were indicted for federal tax fraud. At a board meeting on November 12, 1980, White proposed that the Co-Op purchase White Flame. The board agreed. One month later, however, the Co-Op filed a declaratory action against White and White Flame in Arkansas state court alleging that White actually had sold White Flame to the Co-Op in February 1980. The complaint was drafted by White’s attorneys and led to a consent decree relieving White of his debts and providing that the Co-Op had owned White Flame since February 15, 1980. White and Kuykendall were convicted of tax fraud in January 1981. See United States v. White, 671 F. 2d 1126 (CA8 1982) (affirming their convictions). Harry Erwin, the managing partner of Russell Brown and Company, an Arkansas accounting firm, testified for White, and shortly thereafter the Co-Op retained Russell Brown to perform its 1981 financial audit. Joe Drozal, a partner in the Brown firm, was put in charge of the audit and Joe Cabaniss was selected to assist him. On January 2, 1982, Russell Brown and Company merged with Arthur Young and Company, which later became respondent Ernst & Young. One of Drozal’s first tasks in the audit was to determine White Flame’s fixed-asset value. After consulting with White and reviewing White Flame’s books (which Kuyken-dall had prepared), Drozal concluded that the plant’s value at the end of 1980 was $4,393,242.66, the figure Kuykendall had employed. Using this figure as a base, Drozal factored in the 1981 construction costs and capitalized expenses and concluded that White Flame’s 1981 fixed-asset value was approximately $4.5 million. Drozal then had to determine how that value should be treated for accounting purposes. If the Co-Op had owned White Flame from the beginning of construction in 1979, White Flame’s value for accounting purposes would be its fixed-asset value of $4.5 million. If, however, the Co-Op had purchased White Flame from White, White Flame would have to be given its fair market value at the time of purchase, which was somewhere between $444,000 and $1.5 million. If White Flame were valued at less than $1.5 million, the Co-Op was insolvent. Drozal concluded that the Co-Op had owned White Flame from the start and that the plant should be valued at $4.5 million on its books. On April 22, 1982, Arthur Young presented its 1981 audit report to the Co-Op’s board. In that audit’s Note 9, Arthur Young expressed doubt whether the investment in White Flame could ever be recovered. Note 9 also observed that White Flame was sustaining operating losses averaging $100,000 per month. See Arthur Young & Co. v. Reves, 937 F. 2d 1310, 1318 (CA8 1991). Arthur Young did not tell the board of its conclusion that the Co-Op always had owned White Flame or that without that conclusion the Co-Op was insolvent. On May 27, the Co-Op held its 1982 annual meeting. At that meeting, the Co-Op, through Harry C. Erwin, a partner in Arthur Young, distributed to the members condensed financial statements. These included White Flame’s $4.5 million asset value among its total assets but omitted the information contained in the audit’s Note 9. See 937 F. 2d, at 1318-1319. Cabaniss was also present. Erwin saw the condensed financial statement for the first time when he arrived at the meeting. In a 5-minute presentation, he told his audience that the statements were condensed and that copies of the full audit were available at the Co-Op’s office. In response to questions, Erwin explained that the Co-Op owned White Flame and that the plant had incurred approximately $1.2 million in losses but he revealed no other information relevant to the Co-Op’s true financial health. The Co-Op hired Arthur Young also to perform its 1982 audit. The 1982 report, presented to the board on March 7, 1983, was similar to the 1981 report and restated (this time in its Note 8) Arthur Young’s doubt whether the investment in White Flame was recoverable. See 937 F. 2d, at 1320. The gasohol plant again was valued at approximately $4.5 million and was responsible for the Co-Op’s showing a positive net worth. The condensed financial statement distributed at the annual meeting on March 24, 1983, omitted the information in Note 8. This time, Arthur Young reviewed the condensed statement in advance but did not act to remove its name from the statement. Cabaniss, in a 3-minute presentation at the meeting, gave the financial report. He informed the members that the full audit was available at the Co-Op’s office but did not tell them about Note 8 or that the Co-Op was in financial difficulty if White Flame were written down to its fair market value. Ibid. In February 1984, the Co-Op experienced a slight run on its demand notes. On February 23, when it was unable to secure further financing, the Co-Op filed for bankruptcy. As a result, the demand notes were frozen in the bankruptcy estate and were no longer redeemable at will by the noteholders. II On February 14, 1985, the trustee in bankruptcy filed suit against 40 individuals and entities, including Arthur Young, on behalf of the Co-Op and certain noteholders. The District Court certified a class of noteholders, petitioners here, consisting of persons who had purchased demand notes between February 15, 1980, and February 23, 1984. Petitioners settled with all defendants except Arthur Young. The District Court determined before trial that the demand notes were securities under both federal and state law. See Robertson v. White, 635 F. Supp. 851, 865 (WD Ark. 1986). The court then granted summary judgment in favor of Arthur Young on the RICO claim. See Robertson v. White, Nos. 85-2044, 85-2096, 85-2155, and 85-2259 (WD Ark., Oct. 15,1986), App. 198-200. The District Court applied the test established by the Eighth Circuit in Bennett v. Berg, 710 F. 2d 1361, 1364 (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Bennett, 464 U. S. 1008 (1983), that § 1962(c) requires “some participation in the operation or management of the enterprise itself.” App. 198. The court ruled: “Plaintiffs have failed to show anything more than that the accountants reviewed a series of completed transactions, and certified the Co-Op’s records as fairly portraying its financial status as of a date three or four months preceding the meetings of the directors and the shareholders at which they presented their reports. We do not hesitate to declare that such activities fail to satisfy the degree of management required by Bennett v. Berg.” Id., at 199-200. The case went to trial on the state and federal securities fraud claims. The jury found that Arthur Young had committed both state and federal securities fraud and awarded approximately $6.1 million in damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the demand notes were not securities under federal or state law. See Arthur Young & Co. v. Reves, 856 F. 2d 52, 55 (CA8 1988). On writ of certio-rari, this Court ruled that the notes were securities within the meaning of §3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 882, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78c(a)(10). Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U. S. 56, 70 (1990). On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court in all major respects except the damages award, which it reversed and remanded for a new trial. See 937 F. 2d, at 1339-1340. The only part of the Court of Appeals’ decision that is at issue here is its affirmance of summary judgment in favor of Arthur Young on the RICO claim. Like the District Court, the Court of Appeals applied the “operation or management” test articulated in Ben nett v. Berg and held that Arthur Young’s conduct did not “rise to the level of participation in the management or operation of the Co-op.” See 937 F. 2d, at 1324. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also has adopted an “operation or management” test. See Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639, 286 U. S. App. D. C. 182, 188, 913 F. 2d. 948, 954 (1990) (en banc), cert. denied, 501 U. S. 1222 (1991). We granted certiorari, 502 U. S. 1090 (1992), to resolve the conflict between these cases and Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn. v. Touche Ross & Co., 782 F. 2d 966, 970 (CA11 1986) (rejecting requirement that a defendant participate in the operation or management of an enterprise). III In determining the scope of a statute, we look first to its language. If the statutory language is unambiguous, in the absence of ‘a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.’” United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576, 580 (1981), quoting Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980). See also Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 20 (1988). Section 1962(c) makes it unlawful “for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise ... to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity ....” The narrow question in this case is the meaning of the phrase “to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs.” The word “conduct” is used twice, and it seems reasonable to give each use a similar construction. See Sorenson v. Secretary of Treasury, 475 U. S. 851, 860 (1986). As a verb, “conduct” means to lead, run, manage, or direct. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 474 (1976). Petitioners urge us to read “conduct” as “carry on,” Brief for Petitioners 23, so that almost any involvement in the affairs of an enterprise would satisfy the “conduct or participate” requirement. But context is important, and in the context of the phrase “to conduct . . . [an] enterprise’s affairs,” the word indicates some degree of direction. The dissent agrees that, when “conduct” is used as a verb, “it is plausible to find in it a suggestion of control.” Post, at 187. The dissent prefers to focus on “conduct” as a noun, as in the phrase “participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of [an] enterprise’s affairs.” But unless one reads “conduct” to include an element of direction when used as a noun in this phrase, the word becomes superfluous. Congress could easily have written “participate, directly or indirectly, in [an] enterprise’s affairs,” but it chose to repeat the word “conduct.” We conclude, therefore, that as both a noun and a verb in this subsection “conduct” requires an element of direction. The more difficult question is what to make of the word “participate.” This Court previously has characterized this word as a “ter[m] ... of breadth.” Russello, 464 U. S., at 21-22. Petitioners argue that Congress used “participate” as a synonym for “aid and abet.” Brief for Petitioners 26. That would be a term of breadth indeed, for “aid and abet” “comprehends all assistance rendered by words, acts, encouragement, support, or presence.” Black’s Law Dictionary 68 (6th ed. 1990). But within the context of § 1962(c), “participate” appears to have a narrower meaning. We may mark the limits of what the term might mean by looking again at what Congress did not say. On the one hand, “to participate . . . in the conduct of . . . affairs” must be broader than “to conduct affairs” or the “participate” phrase would be superfluous. On the other hand, as we already have noted, “to participate ... in the conduct of... affairs” must be narrower than “to participate in affairs” or Congress’ repetition of the word “conduct” would serve no purpose. It seems that Congress chose a middle ground, consistent with a common understanding of the word “participate” — “to take part in.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1646 (1976). Once we understand the word “conduct” to require some degree of direction and the word “participate” to require some part in that direction, the meaning of § 1962(c) comes into focus. In order to “participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs,” one must have some part in directing those affairs. Of course, the word “participate” makes clear that RICO liability is not limited to those with primary responsibility for the enterprise’s affairs, just as the phrase “directly or indirectly” makes clear that RICO liability is not limited to those with a formal position in the enterprise, but some part in directing the enterprise’s affairs is required. The “operation or management” test expresses this requirement in a formulation that is easy to apply. IV A This test finds further support in the legislative history of §1962. The basic structure of §1962 took shape in the spring of 1969. On March 20 of that year, Senator Hruska introduced S. 1623, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., which combined his previous legislative proposals. See Lynch, RICO: The Crime of Being a Criminal, Parts I & II, 87 Colum. L. Rev. 661, 676 (1987); Blakey & Gettings, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO): Basic Concepts — Criminal and Civil Remedies, 63 Temp. L. Q. 1009, 1017 (1980). Senate bill 1623 was titled the “Criminal Activities Profits Act” and was directed solely at the investment of proceeds derived from criminal activity. It was § 2(a) of this bill that ultimately became § 1962(a). On April 18, Senators McClellan and Hruska introduced S. 1861, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., which recast S. 1623 and added provisions that became §§ 1962(b) and (c). See Blakey, The RICO Civil Fraud Action in Context: Reflections on Bennett v. Berg, 58 Notre Dame L. Rev. 237, 264, n. 76 (1982). The first line of S. 1861 reflected its expanded purpose: “to prohibit the infiltration or management of legitimate organizations by racketeering activity or the proceeds of racketeering activity” (emphasis added). On June 3, Assistant Attorney General Will Wilson presented the views of the Department of Justice on a number of bills relating to organized crime, including S. 1623 and S. 1861, to the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Wilson criticized S. 1623 on the ground that “it is too narrow in that it merely prohibits the investment of prohibited funds in a business, but fails to prohibit the control or operation of such a business by means of prohibited racketeering activities.” Measures Related to Organized Crime: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 387 (1969) (emphasis added). He praised S. 1861 because the “criminal provisions of the bill contained in Section 1962 are broad enough to cover most of the methods by which ownership, control and operation of business concerns are acquired.” Ibid, (emphasis added). See Blakey, supra, at 258, n. 59. With alterations not relevant here, S. 1861 became Title IX of S. 30. The House and Senate Reports that accompanied S. 30 described the three-part structure of § 1962: “(1) making unlawful the receipt or use of income from ‘racketeering activity’ or its proceeds by a principal in commission of the activity to acquire an interest in or establish an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce; (2) prohibiting the acquisition of any enterprise engaged in interstate commerce through a ‘pattern’ of ‘racketeering activity;’ and (3) proscribing the operation of any enterprise engaged in interstate commerce through a ‘pattern’ of ‘racketeering activity.’” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, p. 35 (1970); S. Rep. No. 91-617, p. 34 (1969) (emphasis added). In their comments on the floor, Members of Congress consistently referred to subsection (c) as prohibiting the operation of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity and to subsections (a) and (b) as prohibiting the acquisition of an enterprise. Representative Cellar, who was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that voted RICO out in 1970, described § 1962(c) as proscribing the “conduct of the affairs of a business by a person acting in a managerial capacity, through racketeering activity.” 116 Cong. Rec. 35196 (1970) (emphasis added). Of course, the fact that Members of Congress understood § 1962(c) to prohibit the operation or management of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity does not necessarily mean that they understood § 1962(c) to be limited to the operation or management of an enterprise. Cf. Turkette, 452 U. S., at 591 (references to the infiltration of legitimate organizations do not “requir[e] the negative inference that [RICO] did not reach the activities of enterprises organized and existing for criminal purposes”). It is clear from other remarks, however, that Congress did not intend RICO to extend beyond the acquisition or operation of an enterprise. While S. 30 was being considered, critics of the bill raised concerns that racketeering activity was defined so broadly that RICO would reach many crimes not necessarily typical of organized crime. See 116 Cong. Rec. 18912-18914, 18939-18940 (1970) (remarks of Sen. McClellan). Senator McClellan reassured the bill’s critics that the critical limitation was not to be found in § 1961(l)’s list of predicate crimes but in the statute’s other requirements, including those of § 1962: “The danger that commission of such offenses by other individuals would subject them to proceedings under title IX [RICO] is even smaller than any such danger under title III of the 1968 [Safe Streets] [A]ct, since commission of a crime listed under title IX provides only one element of title IX’s prohibitions. Unless an individual not only commits such a crime but engages in a pattern of such violations, and uses that pattern to obtain or operate an interest in an interstate business, he is not made subject to proceedings under title IX.” 116 Cong. Rec., at 18940. Thus, the legislative history confirms what we have already deduced from the language of § 1962(c) — that one is not liable under that provision unless one has participated in the operation or management of the enterprise itself. B RICO’s “liberal construction” clause does not require rejection of the “operation or management” test. Congress directed, by § 904(a) of Pub. L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 947, see note following 18 U. S. C. § 1961, p. 438, that the “provisions of this title shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.” This clause obviously seeks to ensure that Congress’ intent is not frustrated by an overly narrow reading of the statute, but it is not an invitation to apply RICO to new purposes that Congress never intended. Nor does the clause help us to determine what purposes Congress had in mind. Those must be gleaned from the statute through the normal means of interpretation. The clause “‘only serves as an aid for resolving an ambiguity; it is not to be used to beget one.’ ” Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 492, n. 10 (1985), quoting Callanan v. United States, 364 U. S. 587, 596 (1961). In this ease it is clear that Congress did not intend to extend RICO liability under § 1962(c) beyond those who participate in the operation or management of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. V Petitioners argue that the “operation or management” test is flawed because liability under § 1962(c) is not limited to upper management but may extend to “any person employed by or associated with [the] enterprise.” Brief for Petitioners 37-40. We agree that liability under § 1962(c) is not limited to upper management, but we disagree that the “operation or management” test is inconsistent with this proposition. An enterprise is “operated” not just by upper management but also by lower rung participants in the enterprise who are under the direction of upper management. An enterprise also might be “operated” or “managed” by others “associated with” the enterprise who exert control over it as, for example, by bribery. The United States also argues that the “operation or management” test is not consistent with § 1962(c) because it limits the liability of “outsiders” who have no official position within the enterprise. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12 and 15. The United States correctly points out that RICO’s major purpose was to attack the “infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations,” S. Rep. No. 91-617, at 76, but its argument fails on several counts. First, it ignores the fact that §1962 has four subsections. Infiltration of legitimate organizations by “outsiders” is clearly addressed in subsections (a) and (b), and the “operation or management” test that applies under subsection (c) in no way limits the application of subsections (a) and (b) to “outsiders.” Second, § 1962(c) is limited to persons “employed by or associated with” an enterprise, suggesting a more limited reach than subsections (a) and (b), which do not contain such a restriction. Third, § 1962(c) cannot be interpreted to reach complete “outsiders” because liability depends on showing that the defendants conducted or participated in the conduct of the “enterprise’s affairs,” not just their own affairs. Of course, “outsiders” may be liable under § 1962(c) if they are “associated with” an enterprise and participate in the conduct of its affairs — that is, participate in the operation or management of the enterprise itself — but it would be consistent with neither the language nor the legislative history of § 1962(c) to interpret it as broadly as petitioners and the United States urge. In sum, we hold that “to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs,” § 1962(c), one must participate in the operation or management of the enterprise itself. VI Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals applied the standard we adopt today to the facts of this case, and both found that respondent was entitled to summary judgment. Neither petitioners nor the United States have argued that these courts misapplied the “operation or management” test. The dissent argues that by creating the Co-Op’s financial statements Arthur Young participated in the management of the Co-Op because “‘financial statements are management’s responsibility.’ ” Post, at 190, quoting 1 CCH AICPA Professional Standards, SAS No. 1, §110.02 (1982). Although the professional standards adopted by the accounting profession may be relevant, they do not define what constitutes management of an enterprise for the purposes of § 1962(c). In this case, it is undisputed that Arthur Young relied upon existing Co-Op records in preparing the 1981 and 1982 audit reports. The AICPA’s professional standards state that an auditor may draft financial statements in whole or in part based on information from management’s accounting system. See ibid. It is also undisputed that Arthur Young’s audit reports revealed to the Co-Op’s board that the value of the gasohol plant had been calculated based on the Co-Op’s investment in the plant. See App. in No. 87-1726 (CA8), pp. 250-251, 272-273. Thus, we only could conclude that Arthur Young participated in the operation or management of the Co-Op itself if Arthur Young’s failure to tell the Co-Op’s board that the plant should have been given its fair market value constituted such participation. We think that Arthur Young’s failure in this respect is not sufficient to give rise to liability under § 1962(c). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. It is so ordered. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas do not join Part IV-A of this opinion. In order to be consistent with the terminology employed in earlier judicial writings in this case, we hereinafter refer to the respondent firm as “Arthur Young.” The United States calls our attention to the use of the word “conduct” in 18 U. S. C. § 1955(a), which penalizes anyone who “conducts, finances, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an illegal gambling business.” See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13, n. 11; Tr. of Oral Arg. 24-25. This Court previously has noted that the Courts of Appeals have interpreted this statute to proscribe “any degree of participation in an illegal gambling business, except participation as a mere bettor.” Sanabria v. United States, 437 U. S. 54, 70-71, n. 26 (1978). We may assume, however, that “conducts” has been given a broad reading in this context to distinguish it from “manages, supervises, [or] directs.” For these reasons, we disagree with the suggestion of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that § 1962(c) requires “significant control over or within an enterprise.” Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639, 286 U. S. App. D. C. 182, 188, 913 F. 2d 948, 954 (1990) (en banc) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 501 U. S. 1222 (1991). Senate bill 1623 provided in relevant part: “Sec. 2. (a) Whoever, being a person who has received any income derived directly or indirectly from any criminal activity in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code applies any part of such income or the proceeds of any such income to the acquisition by or on behalf of such person of legal title to or any beneficial interest in any of the assets, liabilities, or capital of any business enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce shall be guilty of a felony and shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Senate bill 1861 provided in relevant part: “§ 1962. Prohibited racketeering activities “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern by [sic] racketeering activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. “(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of unlawful debt. “(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.” See, e. g., 116 Cong. Rec. 607 (1970) (remarks of Sen. Byrd of West Virginia) (“to acquire an interest in businesses ..., or to acquire or operate such businesses by racketeering methods”); id., at 36294 (remarks of Sen. McClellan) (“to acquire an interest in a business..., to use racketeering activities as a means of acquiring such a business, or to operate such a business by racketeering methods”); id., at 36296 (remarks of Sen. Dole) (“using the proceeds of racketeering activity to acquire an interest in businesses engaged in interstate commerce, or to acquire or operate such businesses by racketeering methods”); id., at 36227 (remarks of Rep. Steiger) (“the use of specified racketeering methods to acquire or operate commercial organizations”). Because the meaning of the statute is clear from its language and legislative history, we have no occasion to consider the application of the rule of lenity. We note, however, that the rule of lenity would also favor the narrower “operation or management” test that we adopt. At oral argument, there was some discussion about whether low-level employees could be considered to have participated in the conduct of an enterprise’s affairs. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 12, 25-27. We need not decide in this case how far § 1962(c) extends down the ladder of operation because it is clear that Arthur Young was not acting under the direction of the CoOp’s officers or board. Subsection (d) makes it unlawful to conspire to violate any of the other three subsections. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Whittaker delivered the opinion of the Court. On April 17, 1956, respondent, Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc., acquired a “Territorial Grant” (coextensive with “the Commonwealth of Massachusetts”) of all rights in Letters Patent No. 2,569,724, commonly known as the Mackie-Duluk patent, and 10 days later commenced this action against petitioners, Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc., and several of its officers, to enjoin the alleged infringement and contributory infringement of the patent and for an accounting of profits. The patent — one for a “Convertible Folding Top with Automatic Seal at Rear Quarter” — covers the combination, in an automobile body, of a flexible top fabric, supporting structures, and a mechanism for sealing the fabric against the side of the automobile body in order to keep out the rain. Tops embodying the patent have been installed by several automobile manufacturers in various models of convertibles. The components of the patented combination, other than the fabric, normally are usable for the lifetime of the car, but the fabric has a much shorter life. It usually so suffers from wear and tear, or so deteriorates in appearance, as to become “spent,” and normally is replaced, after about three years of use. The consequent demand for replacement fabrics has given rise to a substantial industry, in which petitioner, Aro Manufacturing Co., is a national leader. It manufactures and sells replacement fabrics designed to fit the models of convertibles equipped with tops embodying the combination covered by the patent in suit. After trial without a jury, the court held that the patent was valid, infringed and contributorily infringed by petitioners. It accordingly enjoined them from further manufacture, sale or use of these replacement fabrics, and appointed a master to hear evidence concerning, and to report to the court on, the matter of damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 270 F. 2d 200, and we granted certiorari, 362 U. S. 902. The Court of Appeals, after holding that the patent was valid, stated that the “basic question” presented was whether petitioners’ conduct constituted “making a permissible replacement of a part [the fabric] which expect-edly became worn out or defective sooner than other parts of the patented combination” or whether such replacement constituted “a forbidden reconstruction of the combination.” It then held that replacement of the fabric constituted reconstruction of the combination and thus infringed or contributorily infringed the patent. It reached that conclusion principally upon the ground that “the life of the fabric is not so short, nor is the fabric so cheap, that we can safely assume that an owner would rationally believe that in replacing it he was making only a minor repair to his top structure.” 270 F. 2d, at 202, 205. Validity of the patent is not challenged in this Court. The principal, and we think the determinative, question presented here is whether the owner of a combination patent, comprised entirely of unpatented elements, has a patent monopoly on the manufacture, sale or use of the several unpatented components of the patented combination. More specifically, and limited to the particular case here, does the car owner infringe (and the supplier contributorily.infringe) the combination patent when he replaces the spent fabric without the patentee’s consent? The fabric with which we deal here is an unpatented element of respondent’s combination patent, which covers only the combination of certain components, one of which is a “flexible top material.” The patent makes no claim to invention based on the fabric or on its shape, pattern or design. Whether the fabric or its shape might have been patentable is immaterial, for the fact is that neither the fabric nor its shape has been patented. No claim that the fabric or its shape, pattern or design constituted the invention was made in the application or included in the patent. Since the patentees never claimed the fabric or its shape as their invention, and the claims made in the patent are the sole measure of the grant, the fabric is no more than an unpatented element of the combination which was claimed as the invention, and the patent did not confer a monopoly over the fabric or its shape. In Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Co., 320 U. S. 661, 667, this Court ruled the point as follows: “The patent is for a combination only. Since none of the separate elements of the combination is claimed as the invention, none of them when dealt with separately is protected by the patent monopoly.” And in Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Co., 320 U. S. 680, 684, the Court said: “The fact that an unpatented part of a combination patent may distinguish the invention does not draw to it the privileges of a patent. That may be done only in the manner provided by law. However worthy it may be, however essential to the patent, an unpatented part of a combination patent is no more entitled to monopolistic protection than any other unpatented device.” See also McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 423-424; Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 16. It follows that petitioners’ manufacture and sale of the fabric is not a direct infringement under 35 U. S. C. § 271 (a). Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Co., 198 U. S. 399, 410; Eames v. Godfrey, 1 Wall. 78, 79; Prouty v. Ruggles, 16 Pet. 336, 341; U. S. Industries, Inc., v. Otis Engineering Co., 254 F. 2d 198, 203 (C. A. 5th Cir.). But the question remains whether petitioners’ manufacture and sale of the fabric constitute a contributory infringement of the patent under 35 U. S. C. § 271 (c). It is admitted that petitioners know that the purchasers intend to use the fabric for replacement purposes on automobile convertible tops which are covered by the claims of respondent’s combination patent, and such manufacture and sale with that knowledge might well constitute contributory infringement under § 271 (c), if, but only if, such a replacement by the purchaser himself would in itself constitute a direct infringement under § 271 (a), for it is settled that if there is no direct infringement of a patent there can be no contributory infringement. In Mercoid v. Mid-Continent, supra, it was said: “In a word, if there is no infringement of a patent there can be no contributory infringer,” 320 U. S., at 677, and that “if the purchaser and user could not be amerced as an infringer certainly one who sold to him . . . cannot be amerced for contributing to a non-existent infringement.” Id., at 674. It is plain that § 271 (c)- — a part of the Patent Code enacted in 1952 — made no change in the fundamental precept that there can be no contributory infringement in the absence of a direct infringement. That section defines contributory infringement in terms of direct infringement — namely the sale of a component of a patented combination or machine for use “in an infringement of such patent.” And § 271 (a) of the new Patent Code, which defines “infringement,” left intact the entire body of case law on direct infringement. The determinative question, therefore, comes down to whether the car owner would infringe the combination patent by replacing the worn-out fabric element of the patented convertible top on his car, or even more specifically, whether such a replacement by the car owner is infringing “reconstruction” or permissible “repair.” This Court’s decisions specifically dealing with whether the replacement of an unpatented part, in a patented combination, that has worn out, been broken or otherwise spent, is permissible “repair” or infringing “reconstruction,” have steadfastly refused to extend the patent monopoly beyond the terms of the grant. Wilson v. Simpson, 9 How. 109 — doubtless the leading case in this Court that deals with the distinction — concerned a patented planing machine which included, as elements, certain cutting knives which normally wore out in a few months’ use. The purchaser was held to have the right to replace those knives without the patentee’s consent. The Court held that, although there is no right to “rebuild” a patented combination, the entity “exists” notwithstanding the fact that destruction or impairment of one of its elements renders it inoperable; and that, accordingly, replacement of that worn-out essential part is permissible restoration of the machine to the original use for which it was bought. 9 How., at 123. The Court explained that it is “the use of the whole” of the combination which a purchaser buys, and that repair or replacement of the worn-out, damaged or destroyed part is but an exercise of the right “to give duration to that which he owns, or has a right to use as a whole.” Ibid,. The distilled essence of the Wilson case was stated by Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416, 425 (C. A. 2d Cir.): “The ' [patent] monopolist cannot prevent those to whom he sells from . . . reconditioning articles worn by use, unless they in fact make a new article.” Instead of applying this plain and practical test, the courts below focused attention on operative facts not properly determinative of the question of permissible repair versus forbidden reconstruction. The Court of Appeals found that the fabric “is not a minor or relatively inexpensive component” of the patented combination, or an element that would expectedly wear out after a very short period of use — although its “expectable life span” is shorter than that of the other components — and, for these reasons, concluded that “an owner would [not] rationally believe that ... he was making only a minor repair” in replacing the worn-out fabric, but that, instead, the replacement “would be counted a major reconstruction:” 270 F. 2d, at 205. We think that test was erroneous. Respondent has strenuously urged, as an additional relevant factor, the “essentialness” of the fabric element to the combination constituting the invention. It argues that the particular shape of the fabric was the advance in the art — the very “heart” of the invention- — -which brought the combination up to the inventive level, and, therefore, concludes that its patent should be held to grant it a monopoly on the fabric. The rule for which respondent contends is: That when an element of a patented machine or combination is relatively durable — even though not so durable as the entire patented device which the owner purchased — relatively expensive, relatively difficult to replace, and is an “essential” or “distinguishing” part of the patented combination, any replacement of that element, when it wears out or is otherwise spent, constitutes infringing “reconstruction,” and, therefore, a new license must be obtained from, and another royalty paid to, the patentee for that privilege. We cannot agree. For if anything is settled in the patent law, it is that the combination patent covers only the totality of the elements in the claim and that no element, separately viewed, is within the grant. See the Mercoid cases, supra, 320 U. S., at 667; 320 U. S., at 684. The basic fallacy in respondent’s position is that it requires the ascribing to one element of the patented combination the status of patented invention in itself. Yet this Court has made it clear in the two Mercoid cases that there is no legally recognizable or protected “essential” element, “gist” or “heart” of the invention in a combination patent. In Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Co., supra, the Court said: “That result may not be obviated in the present case by calling the combustion stoker switch the ‘heart of the invention’ or the ‘advance in the art.’ The patent is for a combination only. Since none of the separate elements of the combination is claimed as the invention, none of them when dealt with separately is protected by the patent monopoly.” 320 U. S., at 667. And in Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Co., supra, the Court said: “The fact that an unpatented part of a combination patent may distinguish the invention does not draw to it the privileges of a patent. That may be done only in the manner provided by law. However worthy it may be, however essential to the patent, an unpatented part of a combination patent is no more entitled to monopolistic protection than any other unpatented device.” 320 U. S., at 684. No element, not itself separately patented, that constitutes one of the elements of a combination patent is entitled to patent monopoly, however essential it may be to the patented combination and no matter how costly or difficult replacement may be. While there is language in some lower court opinions indicating that “repair” or “reconstruction” depends on a number of factors, it is significant that each of the three cases of this Court, cited for that proposition, holds that a license to use a patented combination includes the right “to preserve its fitness for use so far as it may be affected, by wear or breakage.” Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 213 U. S. 325, 336; Heyer v. Duplicator Mfg. Co., supra, at 102; and Wilson v. Simpson, supra, at 123. We hold that maintenance of the “use of the whole” of the patented combination through replacement of a spent, unpatented element does not constitute reconstruction. The decisions of this Court require the conclusion that reconstruction of a patented entity, comprised of unpat-ented elements, is limited to such a true reconstruction of the entity as to “in fact make a new article,” United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, supra, at 425, after the entity, viewed as a whole, has become spent. In order to call the monopoly, conferred by the patent grant, into play for a second time, it must, indeed, be a second creation of the patented entity, as, for example, in CottonTie Co. v. Simmons, supra. Mere replacement of individual unpatented parts, one at a time, whether of the same part repeatedly or different parts successively, is no more than the lawful right of the owner to repair his property. Measured by this test, the replacement of the fabric involved in this case must be characterized as permissible “repair,” not “reconstruction.” Reversed. There are 10 claims in the patent. Claims 1 through 9 of the patent each specifically begin: “In a convertible automobile body, the combination of . . . Claim 10 does not contain the word “combination” but nevertheless equally claims only a combination. Among other elements in the claims are the automobile body structure or tonneau, a folding bow structure, a sealing strip, and a wiping arm. Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co., 336 U. S. 271, 277; Universal Oil Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co., 322 U. S. 471, 484; Milcor Steel Co. v. Fuller Co., 316 U. S. 143, 145-146. Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Co., 320 U. S. 661, 667; Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Co., 320 U. S. 680, 684; McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 423-424; Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 16. Section 271 (a) provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses or sells any patented invention, within the United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.” Section 271 (c) is as follows: “Whoever sells a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial nonin-fringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.” (Emphasis added.) Although these statements were made in the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice Roberts, respectively, there is nothing in the majority opinion remotely suggesting any disagreement with the fundamental conclusion that there can be no contributory infringement in the absence of direct infringement. The reviser’s note on § 271 (a) specifically stated that it is "declaratory only.” 35 U. S. C. A., following §271. “The prior statute had no section defining or dealing with what constitutes infringement of a patent,” and § 271 (a) was adopted “for completeness.” Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act, 35 U. S. C. A., preceding § 1, at p. 51. None of this Court’s later decisions dealing with the distinctions between “repair” and “reconstruction” have added to the exposition made in Wilson v. Simpson, supra, and that opinion has long been recognized as the Court’s authoritative expression on the subject. Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Paper Co., 152 U. S. 425, and Heyer v. Duplicator Mfg. Co., 263 U. S. 100, held that an owner or licensee of a patented machine or combination does not infringe the patent by replacing an unpatented element of the combination which has only a temporary period of usefulness, so that replacement is necessary for continued utilization of the machine or combination as a whole. Those cases came clearly within the Wilson case. Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons, 106 U. S. 89, the only other repair-reconstruction ease decided by this Court since Wilson, found infringement by one who bought up, as scrap metal, patented metal straps, used in tying cotton bales, after the straps had been used and severed (in unbinding the bales), and who then welded or otherwise reconnected the straps at the severed point and resold them for further use in baling cotton. The ease is distinguishable on its facts, and the fact that the ties were marked “Licensed to use once only,” was deemed of importance by the Court. Cf. Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. l. Although the Mercoid cases involve the doctrine of patent misuse, which is not an issue in this case, they also specifically delimit the character of a combination patent monopoly and it is upon that matter that they are relevant here. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented is whether an agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes bars the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an enforcement action alleging that the employer has violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 328, 42 U. S. C. § 12101 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V). I In his application for employment with respondent, Eric Baker agreed that “any dispute or claim” concerning his employment would be “settled by binding arbitration.” As a condition of employment, all prospective Waffle House employees are required to sign an application containing a similar mandatory arbitration agreement. See App. 56. Baker began working as a grill operator at one of respondent’s restaurants on August 10,1994. Sixteen days later he suffered a seizure at work and soon thereafter was discharged. Id., at 43-44. Baker did not initiate arbitration proceedings, nor has he in the seven years since his termination, but he did file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging that his discharge violated the ADA. After an investigation and an unsuccessful attempt to conciliate, the EEOC filed an enforcement action against respondent in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina, pursuant to § 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U. S. C. § 12117(a) (1994 ed.), and §102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as added, 105 Stat. 1072, 42 U. S. C. § 1981a (1994 ed.). Baker is not a party to the case. The EEOC’s complaint alleged that respondent engaged in employment practices that violated the ADA, including its discharge of Baker “because of his disability,” and that its violation was intentional, and “done with malice or with reckless indifference to [his] federally protected rights.” The complaint requested the court to grant injunctive relief to “eradicate the effects of [respondent’s] past and present unlawful employment practices/' to order specific relief designed to make Baker whole, including backpay, reinstatement, and compensatory damages, and to award punitive damages for malicious and reckless conduct. App. 38-40. Respondent filed a petition under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., to stay the EEOC’s suit and compel arbitration, or to dismiss the action. Based on a factual determination that Baker’s actual employment contract had not included the arbitration provision, the District Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals granted an interlocutory appeal and held that a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement between Baker and respondent did exist. 193 F. 3d 805, 808 (CA4 1999). The court then proceeded to consider “what effect, if any, the binding arbitration agreement between Baker and Waffle House has on the EEOC, which filed this action in its own name both in the public interest and on behalf of Baker.” Id., at 809. After reviewing the relevant statutes and the language of the contract, the court concluded that the agreement did not foreclose the enforcement action because the EEOC was not a party to the contract, and it has independent statutory authority to bring suit in any federal district court where venue is proper. Id., at 809-812. Nevertheless, the court held that the EEOC was precluded from seeking victim-specific relief in court because the policy goals expressed in the FAA required giving some effect to Baker’s arbitration agreement. The majority explained: “When the EEOC seeks ‘make-whole’ relief for a charging party, the federal policy favoring enforcement of private arbitration agreements outweighs the EEOC’s right to proceed in federal court because in that circumstance, the EEOC’s public interest is minimal, as the EEOC seeks primarily to vindicate private, rather than public, interests. On the other hand, when the EEOC is pursuing large-scale injunctive relief, the balance tips in favor of EEOC enforcement efforts in federal court because the public interest dominates the EEOC’s action.” Id., at 812. Therefore, according to the Court of Appeals, when an employee has signed a mandatory arbitration agreement, the EEOC’s remedies in an enforcement action are limited to injunctive relief. Several Courts of Appeals have considered this issue and reached conflicting conclusions. Compare EEOC v. Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc., 177 F. 3d 448 (CA6 1999) (employee’s agreement to arbitrate does not affect the EEOC’s independent statutory authority to pursue an enforcement action for injunctive relief, backpay, and damages in federal court), with EEOC v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., 156 F. 3d 298 (CA2 1998) (allowing the EEOC to pursue injunctive relief in federal court, but precluding monetary relief); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Nixon, 210 F. 3d 814 (CA8), cert. denied, 531 U. S. 958 (2000) (same). We granted the EEOC’s petition for certiorari to resolve this conflict, 532 U. S. 941 (2001), and now reverse. II Congress has directed the EEOC to exercise the same enforcement powers, remedies, and procedures that are set forth in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it is enforcing the ADA’s prohibitions against employment discrimination on the basis of disability. 42 U. S. C. § 12117(a) (1994 ed.). Accordingly, the provisions of Title VII defining the EEOC’s authority provide the starting point for our analysis. When Title VII was enacted in 1964, it authorized private actions by individual employees and public actions by the Attorney General in cases involving a “pattern or practice” of discrimination. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-6(a) (1994 ed.). The EEOC, however, merely had the authority to investigate and, if possible, to conciliate charges of discrimination. See General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC, 446 U. S. 318, 325 (1980). In 1972, Congress amended Title VII to authorize the EEOC to bring its own enforcement actions; indeed, we have observed that the 1972 amendments created a system in which the EEOC was intended “to bear the primary burden of litigation,” id., at 326. Those amendments authorize the courts to enjoin employers from engaging in unlawful employment practices, and to order appropriate affirmative action, which may include reinstatement, with or without backpay. Moreover, the amendments specify the judicial districts in which such actions may be brought. They do not mention arbitration proceedings. In 1991, Congress again amended Title VII to allow the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages by a “complaining party.” 42 U. S. C. § 1981a(a)(l) (1994 ed.). The term includes both private plaintiffs and the EEOC, § 1981a(d)(l)(A), and the amendments apply to ADA claims as well, §§ 1981a(a)(2), (d)(1)(B). As a complaining party, the EEOC may bring suit to enjoin an employer from engaging in unlawful employment practices, and to pursue reinstatement, backpay, and compensatory or punitive damages. Thus, these statutes unambiguously authorize the EEOC to obtain the relief that it seeks in its complaint if it can prove its case against respondent. Prior to the 1991 amendments, we recognized the difference between the EEOC’s enforcement role and an individual employee’s private cause of action in Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355 (1977), and General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC, 446 U. S. 318 (1980). Occidental presented the question whether EEOC enforcement actions are subject to the same statutes of limitations that govern individuals’ claims. After engaging in an unsuccessful conciliation process, the EEOC filed suit in Federal District Court, on behalf of a female employee, alleging sex discrimination. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the EEOC’s claim was time barred; the EEOC filed suit after California’s 1-year statute of limitations had run. We reversed because “under the procedural structure created by the 1972 amendments, the EEOC does not function simply as a vehicle for conducting litigation on behalf of private parties,” 432 U. S., at 368. To hold otherwise would have undermined the agency’s independent statutory responsibility to investigate and conciliate claims by subjecting the EEOC to inconsistent limitations periods. In General Telephone, the EEOC sought to bring a discrimination claim on behalf of all female employees at General Telephone’s facilities in four States, without being certified as the class representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 446 U. S., at 321-322. Relying on the plain language of Title VII and the legislative intent behind the 1972 amendments, we held that the EEOC was not required to comply with Rule 23 because it “need look no further than § 706 for its authority to bring suit in its own name for the purpose, among others, of securing relief for a group of aggrieved individuals.” Id., at 324. In light of the provisions granting the EEOC exclusive jurisdiction over the claim for 180 days after the employee files a charge, we concluded that “the EEOC is not merely a proxy for the victims of discrimination and that [its] enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to Rule 23.” Id., at 326. Against the backdrop of our decisions in Occidental and General Telephone, Congress expanded the remedies available in EEOC enforcement actions in 1991 to include compensatory and punitive damages. There is no language in the statutes or in either of these cases suggesting that the existence of an arbitration agreement between private parties materially changes the EEOC’s statutory function or the remedies that are otherwise available. III The FAA was enacted in 1925, 43 Stat. 883, and then reenacted and codified in 1947 as Title 9 of the United States Code. It has not been amended since the enactment of Title VII in 1964. As we have explained, its “purpose was to reverse the longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements that had existed at English common law and had been adopted by American courts, and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.” Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U. S. 20, 24 (1991). The FAA broadly provides that a written provision in “a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as'exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U. S. C. §2. Employment contracts, except for those covering workers engaged in transportation, are covered by the FAA. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U. S. 105 (2001). The FAA provides for stays of proceedings in federal district courts when an issue in the proceeding is referable to arbitration, and for orders compelling arbitration when one party has failed or refused to comply with an arbitration agreement. See 9 U. S. C. §§3 and 4. We have read these provisions to “manifest a ‘liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.’ ” Gilmer, 500 U. S., at 25 (quoting Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 24 (1983)). Absent some ambiguity in the agreement, however, it is the language of the contract that defines the scope of disputes subject to arbitration. See Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U. S. 52, 57 (1995) (“[T]he FAA’s proarbitration policy does not operate without regard to the wishes of the contracting parties”). For nothing in the statute authorizes a court to compel arbitration of any issues, or by any parties, that are not already covered in the agreement. The FAA does not mention enforcement by public agencies; it ensures the enforceability of private agreements to arbitrate, but otherwise does not purport to place any restriction on a nonparty’s choice of a judicial forum. > The Court of Appeals based its decision on its evaluation of the “competing policies” implemented by the ADA and the FAA, rather than on any language in the text of either the statutes or the arbitration agreement between Baker and respondent. 193 F. 3d, at 812. It recognized that the EEOC never agreed to arbitrate its statutory claim, id., at 811 (“We must also recognize that in this case the EEOC is not a party to any arbitration agreement”), and that the EEOC has “independent statutory authority” to vindicate the public interest, but opined that permitting the EEOC to prosecute Baker’s claim in court “would significantly trample” the strong federal policy favoring arbitration because Baker had agreed to submit his claim to arbitration. Id., at 812. To effectuate this policy, the court distinguished between injunctive and victim-specific relief, and held that the EEOC is barred from obtaining the latter because any public interest served when the EEOC pursues “make whole” relief is outweighed by the policy goals favoring arbitration. Only when the EEOC seeks broad injunctive relief, in the Court of Appeals’ view, does the public interest overcome the goals underpinning the FAA. If it were true that the EEOC could prosecute its claim only with Baker’s consent, or if its prayer for relief could be dictated by Baker, the court’s analysis might be persuasive. But once a charge is filed, the exact opposite is true under the statute — the EEOC is in command of the process. The EEOC has exclusive jurisdiction over the claim for 180 days. During that time, the employee must obtain a right-to-sue letter from the agency before prosecuting the claim. If, however, the EEOC files suit on its own, the employee has no independent cause of action, although the employee may intervene in the EEOC’s suit. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) (1994 ed.). In fact, the EEOC takes the position that it may pursue a claim on the employee’s behalf even after the employee has disavowed any desire to seek relief. Brief for Petitioner 20. The statute clearly makes the EEOC the master of its own case and confers on the agency the authority to evaluate the strength of the public interest at stake. Absent textual support for a contrary view, it is the public agency’s province — not that of the court — to determine whether public resources should be committed to the recovery of victim-specific relief. And if the agency makes that determination, the statutory text unambiguously authorizes it to proceed in a judicial forum. Respondent and the dissent contend that Title VII supports the Court of Appeals’ bar against victim-specific relief, because the statute limits the EEOC’s recovery to “appropriate” relief as determined by a court. See Brief for Respondent 19, and n. 8; post, at 301-303 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). They rely on § 706(g)(1), which provides that, after a finding of liability, “the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay... or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(g)(l) (1994 ed.) (emphasis added). They claim this provision limits the remedies available and directs courts, hot the EEOC, to determine what relief is appropriate. The proposed reading is flawed for two reasons. First, under the plain language of the statute the term “appropriate” refers to only a subcategory of claims for equitable relief, not damages. The provision authorizing compensatory and punitive damages is in a separate section o'f the statute, § 1981a(a)(l), and is not limited by this language. The dissent responds by pointing to the phrase “may recover” in § 1981a(a)(l), and arguing that this too provides authority for prohibiting victim-specific relief. See post, at 303, n. 7. But this contention only highlights the second error in the proposed reading. If “appropriate” and “may recover” can be read to support respondent’s position, then any discretionary language would constitute authorization for judge-made, per se rules. This is not the natural reading of the text. These terms obviously refer to the trial judge’s discretion in a particular case to order reinstatement and award damages in an amount warranted by the facts of that case. They do not permit a court to announce a categorical rule precluding an expressly authorized form of relief as inappropriate in all cases in which the employee has signed an arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeals wisely did not adopt respondent’s reading of § 706(g). Instead, it simply sought to balance the policy goals of the FAA against the clear language of Title VII and the agreement. While this may be a more coherent approach, it is inconsistent with our recent arbitration cases. The FAA directs courts to place arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts, but it “does not require parties to arbitrate when they have not agreed to do so.” Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U. S. 468, 478 (1989). See also Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 395, 404, n. 12 (1967) (“[T]he purpose of Congress in 1925 was to make arbitration agreements as enforceable as other contracts, but not more so”). Because the FAA is “at bottom a policy guaranteeing the enforcement of private contractual arrangements,” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 625 (1985), we look first to whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute, not to general policy goals, to determine the scope of the agreement. Id., at 626. While ambiguities in the language of the agreement should be resolved in favor of arbitration, Volt, 489 U. S., at 476, we do not override the clear intent of the parties, or reach a result inconsistent with the plain text of the contract, simply because the policy favoring arbitration is implicated. “Arbitration under the [FAA] is a matter of consent, not coercion.” Id., at 479. Here there is no ambiguity. No one asserts that the EEOC is a party to the contract, or that it agreed to arbitrate its claims. It goes without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty. Accordingly, the proarbitration policy goals of the FAA do not require the agency to relinquish its statutory authority if it has not agreed to do so. Even if the policy goals underlying the FAA did necessitate some limit on the EEOC’s statutory authority, the line drawn by the Court of Appeals between injunctive and victim-specific relief creates an uncomfortable fit with its avowed purpose of preserving the EEOC’s public function while favoring arbitration. For that purpose, the category of victim-specific relief is both overinclusive and under-inclusive. For example, it is overinclusive because while punitive damages benefit the individual employee, they also serve an obvious public function in deterring future violations. See Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U. S. 247, 266-270 (1981) (“Punitive damages by definition are not intended to compensate the injured party, but rather to punish the tortfeasor..., and to deter him and others from similar extreme conduct”); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 (1977). Punitive damages may often have a greater impact on the behavior of other employers than the threat of an injunction, yet the EEOC is precluded from seeking this form of relief under the Court of Appeals’ compromise scheme. And, it is underinclusive because injunctive relief, although seemingly not “victim-specific,” can be seen as more closely tied to the employees’ injury than to any public interest. See Occidental, 432 U. S., at 383 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (“While injunctive relief may appear more ‘broad based,’ it nonetheless is redress for individuals”). The compromise solution reached by the Court of Appeals turns what is effectively a forum selection clause into a waiver of a nonparty’s statutory remedies. But if the federal policy favoring arbitration trumps the plain language of Title VII and the contract, the EEOC should be barred from pursuing any claim outside the arbitral forum. If not, then the statutory language is clear; the EEOC has the authority to pursue victim-specific relief regardless of the forum that the employer and employee have chosen to resolve their disputes. Rather than attempt to split the difference, we are persuaded that, pursuant to Title VII and the ADA, whenever the EEOC chooses from among the many charges filed each year to bring an enforcement action in a particular case, the agency may be seeking to vindicate a public interest, not simply provide make-whole relief for the employee, even when it pursues entirely victim-specific relief. To hold otherwise would undermine the detailed enforcement scheme created by Congress simply to give greater effect to an agreement between private parties that does not even contemplate the EEOC’s statutory function. V It is true, as respondent and its amici have argued, that Baker’s conduct may have the effect of limiting the relief that the EEOC may obtain in court. If, for example, he had failed to mitigate his damages, or had accepted a monetary settlement, any recovery by the EEOC would be limited accordingly. See, e. g., Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U. S. 219, 231-232 (1982) (Title VII claimant “forfeits his right to back-pay if he refuses a job substantially equivalent to the one he was denied”); EEOC v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F. 2d 1539, 1542 (CA9 1987) (employee’s settlement “rendered her personal claims moot”); EEOC v. U. S. Steel Corp., 921 F. 2d 489, 495 (CA3 1990) (individuals who litigated their own claims were precluded by res judicata from obtaining individual relief in a subsequent EEOC action based on the same claims). As we have noted, it “goes without saying that the courts can and should preclude double recovery by an individual.” General Telephone, 446 U. S., at 333. But no question concerning the validity of his claim or the character of the relief that could be appropriately awarded in either a judicial or an arbitral forum is presented by this record. Baker has not sought arbitration of his claim, nor is there any indication that he has entered into settlement negotiations with respondent. It is an open question whether a settlement or arbitration judgment would affect the validity of the EEOC’s claim or the character of relief the EEOC may seek. The only issue before this Court is whether the fact that Baker has signed a mandatory arbitration agreement limits the remedies available to the EEOC. The text of the relevant statutes provides a clear answer to that question. They do not authorize the courts to balance the competing policies of the ADA and the FAA or to second-guess the agency’s judgment concerning which of the remedies authorized by law that it shall seek in any given case. Moreover, it simply does not follow from the cases holding that the employee’s conduct may affect the EEOC’s recovery that the EEOC’s claim is merely derivative. We have recognized several situations in which the EEOC does not stand in the employee’s shoes. See Occidental, 432 U. S., at 368 (EEOC does not have to comply with state statutes of limitations); General Telephone, 446 U. S., at 326 (EEOC does not have to satisfy Rule 23 requirements); Gilmer, 500 U. S., at 32 (EEOC is not precluded from seeking classwide and equitable relief in court on behalf of an employee who signed an arbitration agreement). And, in this context, the statute specifically grants the EEOC exclusive authority over the choice of forum and the prayer for relief once a charge has been filed. The fact that ordinary principles of res judicata, mootness, or mitigation may apply to EEOC claims does not contradict these decisions, nor does it render the EEOC a proxy for the employee. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. The agreement states: “The parties agree that any dispute or claim concerning Applicant’s employment with Waffle House, Inc., or any subsidiary or Franchisee of Waffle House, Inc., or the terms, conditions or benefits of such employment, including whether such dispute or claim is arbitrable, will be settled by binding arbitration. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association in effect at the time a demand for arbitration is made. A decision and award of the arbitrator made under the said rules shall be exclusive, final and binding on both parties, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. The costs and expenses of the arbitration shall be borne evenly by the parties.” App. 59. Because no evidence of the employment practices alleged in the complaint has yet been presented, we of course express no opinion on the merits of the EEOC’s case. We note, on the one hand, that the state human rights commission also investigated Baker’s claim and found no basis for suit. On the other hand, the EEOC chooses to file suit in response to only a small number of the many charges received each year, see n. 7, infra. In keeping with normal appellate practice in cases arising at the pleading stage, we assume, arguendo, that the EEOC’s case is meritorious. One member of the panel dissented because he agreed with the District Court that, as a matter of fact, the arbitration clause was not included in Baker’s actual contract of employment. 193 F. 3d, at 813. Section 12117(a) provides: “The powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in sections 2000e-4, 2000e-5, 2000e-6, 2000e~8, and 2000e-9 of this title shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures this subchapter provides to the Commission, to the Attorney General, or to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of any provision of this chapter, or regulations promulgated under section 12116 of this title, concerning employment.” “(g) Injunctions; appropriate affirmative action; equitable relief; accrual of back pay; reduction of back pay; limitations on judicial orders “(1) If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay (payable by the employer, employment agency, or labor organization, as the case may be, responsible for the unlawful employment practice), or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. Back pay liability shall not accrue from a date more than two years prior to the filing of a charge with the Commission. Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person or persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(g)(l) (1994 ed.). Section 2000e-5(f)(3) provides: “Each United States district court and each United States court of a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subehapter. Such an action may be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered, or in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent is not found within any such district, such an action may be brought within the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal office. For purposes of sections 1404 and 1406 of title 28, the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal office shall in all cases be considered a district in which the action might have been brought.” This framework assumes the federal policy favoring arbitration will be undermined unless the EEOC’s remedies are limited. The court failed to consider, however, that some of the benefits of arbitration are already built into the EEOC’s statutory duties. Unlike individual employees, the EEOC cannot pursue a claim in court without first engaging in a conciliation process. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(b) (1994 ed.). Thus, before the EEOC ever filed suit in this case, it attempted to reach a settlement with respondent. The court also neglected to take into account that the EEOC files suit in a small fraction of the charges employees file. For example, in fiscal year 2000, the EEOC received 79,896 charges of employment discrimination. Although the EEOC found reasonable cause in 8,248 charges, it only filed 291 lawsuits. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Enforcement Statistics and Litigation (as visited Nov. 18, 2001), http:// www.eeoc.gov/stats/enforcement.html. In contrast, 21,032 employment discrimination lawsuits were filed in 2000. See Administrative Office, Judicial Business of the United States Courts 2000, Table C-2A (Sept. 30, 2000). These numbers suggest that the EEOC files fewer than two percent of all antidiscrimination claims in federal court. Indeed, even among the cases where it finds reasonable cause, the EEOC files suit in fewer than five percent of those cases. Surely permitting the EEOC access to victim-specific relief in cases where the employee has agreed to binding arbitration, but has not yet brought a claim in arbitration, will have a negligible effect on the federal policy favoring arbitration. Justice Thomas notes that our interpretation of Title VII and the FA A “should not depend on how many cases the EEOC chooses to prosecute in any particular year.” See post, at 314, n. 14 (dissenting opinion). And yet, the dissent predicts our holding will “reduce that arbitration agreement to all but a nullity,” post, at 309, “discourag[e] the use of arbitration agreements,” post, at 310, and “discourage employers from entering into settlement agreements,” post, at 312. These claims are highly implausible given the EEOC’s litigation practice over the past 20 years. When speculating about the impact this decision might have on the behavior of employees and employers, we think it is worth recognizing that the EEOC files suit in less than one percent of the charges filed each year. Justice Thomas implicitly recognizes this distinction by qualifying his description of the courts’ role as determining appropriate relief “in any given case,” or “in a particular ease.” See post, at 301, 303. But the Court of Appeals’ holding was not so limited. 193 F. 3d 805, 812 (CA4 1999) (holding that the EEOC “may not pursue relief in court... specific to individuals who have waived their right to a judicial forum”). In Volt, the parties to a construction contract agreed to arbitrate all disputes relating to the contract and specified that California law would apply. When one party sought to compel arbitration, the other invoked a California statute that authorizes a court to stay arbitration pending resolution of related litigation with third parties not bound by the agreement when inconsistent rulings are possible. We concluded that the FAA did not pre-empt the California statute because “the FAA does not confer a right to compel arbitration of any dispute at any time; it confers only the right to obtain an order directing that ‘arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in [the parties’] agreement.’ ” 489 U. S., at 474-475 (quoting 9 U. S. C. § 4). Similarly, the FAA enables respondent to compel Baker to arbitrate his claim, but it does not expand the range of claims subject to arbitration beyond what is provided for in the agreement. Our decision in Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U. S. 52 (1995), is not inconsistent with this position. In Mastrobuono, we reiterated that clear contractual language governs our interpretation of arbitration agreements, but because the choice-of-law provision in that case was ambiguous, we read the agreement to favor arbitration under the FAA rules. Id., at 62. While we distinguished Volt on the ground that we were reviewing a federal court’s construction of the contract, 514 U. S., at 60, n. 4, regardless of the standard of review, in this case the Court of Appeals recognized that the EEOC was not bound by the agreement. When that much is clear, Volt and Mastrobuono both direct courts to respect the terms of the agreement without regard to the federal policy favoring arbitration. We have held that federal statutory claims may be the subject of arbitration agreements that are enforceable pursuant to the FAA because the agreement only determines the choice of forum. “In these cases we recognized that ‘[b]y agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim, a party does not forgo the substantive rights afforded by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum.’ [Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 628 (1985)].” Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U. S. 20, 26 (1991). To the extent the Court of Appeals construed an employee’s agreement to submit his claims to an arbitral forum as a waiver of the substantive statutory prerogative of the EEOC to enforce those claims for whatever relief and ■ in whatever forum the EEOC sees fit, the court obscured this crucial distinction and ran afoul of our precedent. If injunctive relief were the only remedy available, an employee who signed an arbitration agreement would have little incentive to file a charge with the EEOC. As a greater percentage of the work force becomes subject to arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, see Voluntary Arbitration in Worker Disputes Endorsed by 2 Groups, Wall Street Journal, June 20, 1997, p. B2 (reporting that the American Arbitration Association estimates “more than 3.5 million employees are covered” by arbitration agreements designating it to administer arbitration proceedings), the pool of charges from which the Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

G

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. In response to a subpoena, petitioner appeared as a witness before the United States District Court Grand Jury at Denver, Colorado. There she was asked several questions concerning the Communist Party of Colorado and her employment by it. Petitioner refused to answer these questions on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate her. She was then taken before the district judge where the questions were again propounded and where she again claimed her constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. The district judge found petitioner guilty of contempt of court and sentenced her to imprisonment for one year. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 180 F. 2d 103. We granted certiorari because the decision appeared to deny rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The holding below also was in conflict with recent decisions of the Fifth and Ninth Circuits. Estes v. Potter, 183 F. 2d 865; Alexander v. United States, 181 F. 2d 480. At the time petitioner was called before the grand jury, the Smith Act was on the statute books making it a crime among other things to advocate knowingly the desirability of overthrow of the Government by force or violence; to organize or help to organize any society or group which teaches, advocates or encourages such overthrow of the Government; to be or become a member of such a group with knowledge of its purposes. These provisions made future prosecution of petitioner far more than “a mere imaginary possibility . . . .” Mason v. United States, 244 U. S. 362, 366; she reasonably could fear that criminal charges might be brought against her if she admitted employment by the Communist Party or intimate knowledge of its workings. Whether such admissions by themselves would support a conviction under a criminal statute is immaterial. Answers to the questions asked by the grand jury would have furnished a link in the chain of evidence needed in a prosecution of petitioner for violation of (or conspiracy to violate) the Smith Act. Prior decisions of this Court have clearly established that under such circumstances, the Constitution gives a witness the privilege of remaining silent. The attempt by the courts below to compel petitioner to testify runs counter to the Fifth Amendment as it has been interpreted from the beginning. United States v. Burr, 25 Fed. Cas., Case No. 14,692e, decided by Chief Justice Marshall in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Virginia; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547; Ballmann v. Fagin, 200 U. S. 186; Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616; cf. United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694, 698, 699. Reversed. Me. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The grand jury’s questions which petitioner refused to answer were as follows: “Mrs. Blau, do you know the names of the State officers of the Communist Party of Colorado ?” “Do you know what the organization of the Communist Party of Colorado is, the table of organization of the Communist Party of Colorado?" “Were you ever employed by the Communist Party of Colorado ?” “Mrs. Blau, did you ever have in your possession or custody any of the books and records of the Communist Party of Colorado?” “Did you turn the books and records of the Communist Party of Colorado over to any particular person?” “Do you know the names of any persons who might now have the books and records of the Communist Party of Colorado?” “Could you describe to the grand jury any books and records of the Communist Party of Colorado?” The Fifth Amendment provides: “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .” U. S. Const., Amend. V. 62 Stat. 808,18 U. S. C. § 2385. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated and the cases ate remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for further consideration in light of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent Jill Brown brought a claim for damages against petitioner Bryan County under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. She alleged that a county police officer used excessive force in arresting her, and that the county itself was liable for her injuries based on its sheriff’s hiring and training decisions. She prevailed on her claims against the county following a jury trial, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment against the county on the basis of the hiring claim alone. 67. F. 3d 1174 (1995). We granted certiorari. We conclude that the Court of Appeals’ decision cannot be squared with our recognition that, in enacting § 1983, Congress did not intend to impose liability on a municipality unless deliberate action attributable to the municipality itself is the “moving force” behind the plaintiff’s deprivation of federal rights. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658, 694 (1978). I In the early morning hours of May 12, 1991, Jill Brown (hereinafter respondent) and her husband were driving from Grayson County, Texas, to their home in Bryan County, Oklahoma. After crossing into Oklahoma, they approached a police checkpoint. Mr. Brown, who was driving, decided to avoid the checkpoint and return to Texas. After seeing the Browns’ truck turn away from the checkpoint, Bryan County Deputy Sheriff Robert Morrison and Reserve Deputy Stacy Burns pursued the vehicle. Although the parties’ versions of events differ, at trial both deputies claimed that their patrol car reached speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour. Mr. Brown testified that he was unaware of the deputies’ attempts to overtake him. The chase finally ended four miles south of the police checkpoint. After he got out of the squad car, Deputy Sheriff Morrison pointed his gun toward the Browns’ vehicle and ordered the Browns to raise their hands. Reserve Deputy Burns, who was unarmed, rounded the corner of the vehicle on the passenger’s side. Burns twice ordered respondent from the .vehicle. When she did not exit, he used an “arm bar” technique, grabbing respondent’s arm at the wrist and elbow, pulling her from the vehicle, and spinning her to the ground. Respondent’s knees were severely injured, and she later underwent corrective surgery. Ultimately, she may need knee replacements. Respondent sought compensation for her injuries under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and state law from Burns, Bryan County Sheriff B. J. Moore, and the county itself. Respondent claimed, among other things, that Bryan County was liable for Burns’ alleged use of excessive force based on Sheriff Moore’s decision to hire Burns, the son of his nephew. Specifically, respondent claimed that Sheriff Moore had failed to adequately review Burns’ background. Burns had a record of driving infractions and had pleaded guilty to various driving-related and other misdemeanors, including assault and battery, resisting arrest, and public drunkenness. Oklahoma law does not preclude the hiring of an individual who has committed a misdemeanor to serve as a peace officer. See Okla. Stat., Tit. 70, § 3311(D)(2)(a) (1991) (requiring that the hiring agency certify that the prospective officer’s records do not reflect a felony conviction). At trial, Sheriff Moore testified that he had obtained Burns’ driving record and a report on Burns from the National Crime Information Center, but had not closely reviewed either. Sheriff Moore authorized Burns to make arrests, but not to carry a weapon or to operate a patrol car. In a ruling not at issue here, the District Court dismissed respondent’s § 1983 claim against Sheriff Moore prior to trial. App. 28. Counsel for Bryan County stipulated that Sheriff Moore “was the policy maker for Bryan County regarding the Sheriff’s Department.” Id., at 30. At the close of respondent’s case and again at the close of all of the evidence, Bryan County moved for judgment as a matter of law. As to respondent’s claim that Sheriff Moore’s decision to hire Burns triggered municipal liability, the county argued that a single hiring decision by a municipal policymaker could not give rise to municipal liability under § 1983. Id., at 59-60. The District Court denied the county’s motions. The court also overruled the county’s objections to jury instructions on the § 1983 claim against the county. Id., at 125-126, 132. To resolve respondent’s claims, the jury was asked to answer several interrogatories. The jury concluded that Stacy Burns had arrested respondent without probable cause and had used excessive force, and therefore found him liable for respondent’s injuries. It also found that the “hiring policy” and the “training policy” of Bryan County “in the case of Stacy Burns as instituted by its policymaker, B. J. Moore,” were each “so inadequate as to amount to deliberate indifference to the constitutional needs of the Plaintiff.” Id., at 135. The District Court entered judgment for respondent on the issue of Bryan County’s §1983 liability. The county appealed on several grounds, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 67 F. 3d 1174 (1995). The court held, among other things, that Bryan County was properly found liable under § 1983 based on Sheriff Moore’s decision to hire Burns. Id., at 1185. The court addressed only those points that it thought merited review; it did not address the jury’s determination of county liability based on inadequate training of Burns, id., at 1178, nor do we. We granted cer-tiorari, 517 U. S. 1154 (1996), to decide whether the county was properly held liable for respondent’s injuries based on Sheriff Moore’s single decision to hire Burns. We now reverse. II Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983 provides in relevant part: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at jaw, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” We held in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S., at 689, that municipalities and other local governmental bodies are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. We also recognized that a municipality may not be held liable under § 1983 solely because it employs a tortfeasor. Our conclusion rested partly on the language of § 1983 itself. In' light of the statute’s imposition of liability on one who “subjects [a person], or causes [that person] to be subjected,” to a deprivation of federal rights, we concluded that it “cannot be easily read to impose liability vicariously on governing bodies solely on the basis of the existence of an employer-employee relationship with a tortfeasor.” Id., at 692. Our conclusion also rested upon the statute’s legislative history. As stated in Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U. S. 469, 479 (1986), “while Congress never questioned its power to impose civil liability on municipalities for their own illegal acts, Congress did doubt its constitutional power to impose such liability in order to oblige municipalities to control the conduct of others” (citing Monell, supra, at 665-683). We have consistently refused to hold municipalities liable under a theory of respondeat superior. See Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 808, 818 (1985) (plurality opinion); id., at 828 (opinion of Brennan, J.); Pembaur, supra, at 478-479; St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U. S. 112, 122 (1988) (plurality opinion); id., at 137 (opinion of Brennan, J.); Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378, 392 (1989). Instead, in Monell and subsequent cases, we have required a plaintiff seeking to impose liability on a municipality under §1983 to identify a municipal “policy” or “custom” that caused the plaintiff’s injury. See Monell, supra, at 694; Pembaur, supra, at 480-481; Canton, supra, at 389. Locating a “policy” ensures that a municipality is held liable only for those deprivations resulting from the decisions of its duly constituted legislative body or of those officials whose acts may fairly be said to be those of the municipality. Monell, supra, at 694. Similarly, an act performed pursuant to a “custom” that has not been formally approved by an appropriate decisionmaker may fairly subject a municipality to liability on the theory that the relevant practice is so widespread as to have the force of law. 436 U. S., at 690-691 (citing Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 167-168 (1970)). The parties join issue on whether, under Monell and subsequent cases, a single hiring decision by a county sheriff can be a “policy” that triggers municipal liability. Relying on our decision in Pembaur, respondent claims that a single act by a decisionmaker with final authority in the relevant area constitutes a “policy” attributable to the municipality itself. So long as a § 1983 plaintiff identifies a decision properly attributable to the municipality, respondent argues, there is no risk of imposing respondeat superior liability. Whether that decision was intended to govern only the situation at hand or to serve as a rule to be applied over time is immaterial. Rather, under respondent’s theory, identification of an act of a proper municipal decisionmaker is all that is required to ensure that the municipality is held liable only for its own conduct. The Court of Appeals accepted respondent’s approach. As our § 1983 municipal liability jurisprudence illustrates, however, it is not enough for a § 1983 plaintiff merely to identify conduct properly attributable to the municipality. The plaintiff must also demonstrate that, through its deliberate conduct, the municipality was the “moving force” behind the injury alleged. That is, a plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability and must demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights. Where a plaintiff claims that a particular municipal action itself violates federal law, or directs an employee to do so, resolving these issues of fault and causation is straightforward. Section 1983 itself “contains no state-of-mind requirement independent of that necessary to state a violation” of the underlying federal right. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S. 327, 330 (1986). In any § 1983 suit, however, the plaintiff must establish the state of mind required to prove the underlying violation. Accordingly, proof that a municipality’s legislative body or authorized decisionmaker has intentionally deprived a plaintiff of a federally protected right necessarily establishes that the municipality acted culpably. Similarly, the conclusion that the action taken or directed by the municipality or its authorized decisionmaker itself violates federal law will also determine that the municipal action was the moving force behind the injury of which the plaintiff complains. Sheriff Moore’s hiring decision was itself legal, and Sheriff Moore did not authorize Burns to use excessive force. Respondent’s claim, rather, is that a single facially lawful hiring decision can launch a series of events that ultimately cause a violation of federal rights. Where a plaintiff claims that the municipality has not directly inflicted an injury, but nonetheless has caused an employee to do so, rigorous standards of culpability and causation must be applied to ensure that the municipality is not held liable solely for the actions of its employee. See Canton, supra, at 391-392; Tuttle, supra, at 824 (plurality opinion). See also Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U. S. 257, 270-271 (1987) (per curiam) (dissent from dismissal of writ as improvidently granted). In relying heavily on Pembaur, respondent blurs the distinction between § 1983 cases that present no difficult questions of fault and causation and those that do. To the extent that we have recognized a cause of action under § 1983 based on a single decision attributable to a municipality, we have done so only where the evidence that the municipality had acted and that the plaintiff had suffered a deprivation of federal rights also proved fault and causation. For example, Owen v. Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980), and Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U. S. 247 (1981), involved formal decisions of municipal legislative bodies. In Owen, the city council allegedly censured and discharged an employee without a hearing. 445 U. S., at 627-629, 633, and n. 13. In Fact Concerts, the city council canceled a license permitting a concert following a dispute over the performance’s content. 453 U. S., at 252. Neither decision reflected implementation of a generally applicable rule. But we did not question that each decision, duly promulgated by city lawmakers, could trigger municipal liability if the decision itself were found to be unconstitutional. Because fault and causation were obvious in each case, proof that the municipality’s decision was unconstitutional would suffice to establish that the municipality itself was liable for the plaintiff’s constitutional injury. Similarly, Pembaur v. Cincinnati concerned a decision by a county prosecutor, acting as the county’s final decision-maker, 475 U. S., at 485, to direct county deputies to forcibly enter petitioner’s place of business to serve capiases upon third parties. Relying on Owen and Newport, we concluded that a final decisionmaker’s adoption of a course of action “tailored to a particular situation and not intended to control decisions in later situations” may, in some circumstances, give rise to municipal liability under § 1983. 475 U. S., at 481. In Pembaur, it was not disputed that the prosecutor had specifically directed the action resulting in the deprivation of petitioner’s rights. The conclusion that the decision was that of a final municipal decisionmaker and was therefore properly attributable to the municipality established municipal liability. No questions of fault or causation arose. Claims not involving an allegation that the municipal action itself violated federal law, or directed or authorized the deprivation of federal rights, present much more difficult problems of proof. That a plaintiff has suffered a deprivation of federal rights at the hands of a municipal employee will not alone permit an inference of municipal culpability and causation; the plaintiff will simply have shown that the employee acted culpably. We recognized these difficulties in Canton v. Harris, where we considered a claim that inadequate training of shift supervisors at a city jail led to a deprivation of a detainee’s constitutional rights. We held that, quite apart from the state of mind required to establish the underlying constitutional violation — in that case, a violation of due process, 489 U. S., at 388-389, n. 8 — a plaintiff seeking to establish municipal liability on the theory that a facially lawful municipal action has led an employee to violate a plaintiff’s rights must demonstrate that the municipal action was taken with “deliberate indifference” as to its known or obvious consequences. Id., at 388. A showing of simple or even heightened negligence will not suffice. We concluded in Canton that an “inadequate training” claim could be the basis for § 1983 liability in “limited circumstances.” Id., at 387. We spoke, however, of a deficient training “program,” necessarily intended to apply over time to multiple employees. Id., at 390. Existence of a “program” makes proof of fault and causation at least possible in an inadequate training case. If a program does not prevent constitutional violations, municipal decisionmakers may eventually be put on notice that a new program is called for. Their continued adherence to an approach that they know or should know has failed to prevent tortious conduct by employees may establish the conscious disregard for the consequences of their action — the “deliberate indifference” — necessary to trigger municipal liability. Id., at 390, n. 10 (“It could ... be that the police, in exercising their discretion, so often violate constitutional rights that the need for further training must have been plainly obvious to the city policymakers, who, nevertheless, are ‘deliberately indifferent’ to the need”); id., at 397 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[Municipal liability for failure to train may be proper where it can be shown that policymakers were aware of, and acquiesced in, a pattern of constitutional violations . . .”). In addition, the existence of a pattern of tortious conduct by inadequately trained employees may tend to show that the lack of proper training, rather than a one-time negligent administration of the program or factors peculiar to the officer involved in a particular incident, is the “moving force” behind the plaintiff’s injury. See id., at 390-391. Before trial, counsel for Bryan County stipulated that Sheriff Moore “was the policy maker for Bryan County regarding the Sheriff’s Department.” App. 30. Indeed, the county sought to avoid liability by claiming that its Board of Commissioners participated in no policy decisions regarding the conduct and operation of the office of the Bryan County Sheriff. Id., at 32. Accepting the county’s representations below, then, this case presents no difficult questions concerning whether Sheriff Moore has final authority to act for the municipality in hiring matters. Cf. Jett v. Dallas Independent School Dist., 491 U. S. 701 (1989); St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U. S. 112 (1988). Respondent does not claim that she can identify any pattern of injuries linked to Sheriff Moore’s hiring practices. Indeed, respondent does not contend that Sheriff Moore’s hiring practices are generally defective. The only evidence on this point at trial suggested that Sheriff Moore had adequately screened the backgrounds of all prior deputies he hired. App. 106-110. Respondent instead seeks to trace liability to what can only be described as a deviation from Sheriff Moore’s ordinary hiring practices. Where a claim of municipal liability rests on a single decision, not itself representing a violation of federal law and not directing such a violation, the danger that a municipality will be held liable without fault is high. Because the decision necessarily governs a single case, there can be no notice to the municipal decisionmaker, based on previous violations of federally protected rights, that his approach is inadequate. Nor will it be readily apparent that the municipality’s action caused the injury in question, because the plaintiff can point to no other incident tending to make it more likely that the plaintiff’s own injury flows from the municipality’s action, rather than from some other intervening cause. In Canton, we did not foreclose the possibility that evidence of a single violation of federal rights, accompanied by a showing that a municipality has failed to train its employees to handle recurring situations presenting an obvious potential for such a violation, could trigger municipal liability. 489 U. S., at 390, and n. 10 (“[I]t may happen that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious . . . that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need”). Respondent purports to rely on Canton, arguing that Burns’ use of excessive force was the plainly obvious consequence of Sheriff Moore’s failure to screen Burns’ record. In essence, respondent claims that this showing of “obviousness” would demonstrate both that Sheriff Moore acted with conscious disregard for the consequences of his action and that the Sheriff’s action directly caused her injuries, and would thus substitute for the pattern of injuries ordinarily necessary to establish municipal culpability and causation. The proffered analogy between failure-to-train cases and inadequate screening cases is not persuasive. In leaving open in Canton the possibility that a plaintiff might succeed in carrying a failure-to-train claim without showing a pattern of constitutional violations, we simply hypothesized that, in a narrow range of circumstances, a violation of federal rights may be a highly predictable consequence of a failure to equip law enforcement officers with specific tools to handle recurring situations. The likelihood that the situation will recur and the predictability that an officer lacking specific tools to handle that situation will violate citizens’ rights could justify a finding that policymakers’ decision not to train the officer reflected “deliberate indifference” to the obvious consequence of the policymakers’ choice — namely, a violation of a specific constitutional or statutory right. The high degree of predictability may also support an inference of causation— that the municipality’s indifference led directly to the very consequence that was so predictable. Where a plaintiff presents a § 1983 claim premised upon the inadequacy of an official’s review of a prospective applicant’s record, however, there is a particular danger that a municipality will be held liable for an injury not directly caused by a deliberate action attributable to the municipality itself. Every injury suffered at the hands of a municipal employee can be traced to a hiring decision in a “but-for” sense: But for the municipality’s decision to hire the employee, the plaintiff would not have suffered the injury. To prevent municipal liability for a hiring decision from collapsing into re-spondeat superior liability, a court must carefully test the link between the policymaker’s inadequate decision and the particular injury alleged. In attempting to import the reasoning of Canton into the hiring context, respondent ignores the fact that predicting the consequence of a single hiring decision, even one based on an inadequate assessment of a record, is far more difficult than predicting what might flow from the failure to train a single law enforcement officer as to a specific skill necessary to the discharge of his duties. As our decision in Canton makes clear, “deliberate indifference” is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action. Unlike the risk from a particular glaring omission in a training regimen, the risk from a single instance of inadequate screening of an applicant’s background is not “obvious” in the abstract; rather, it depends upon the background of the applicant. A lack of scrutiny may increase the likelihood that an unfit officer will be hired, and that the unfit officer will, when placed in a particular position to affect the rights of citizens, act improperly. But that is only a generalized showing of risk. The fact that inadequate scrutiny of an applicant’s background would make a violation of rights more likely cannot alone give rise to an inference that a policymaker’s failure to scrutinize the record of a particular applicant produced a specific constitutional violation. After all, a full screening of an applicant’s background might reveal no cause for concern at all; if so, a hiring official who failed to scrutinize the applicant’s background cannot be said to have consciously disregarded an obvious risk that the officer would subsequently inflict a particular constitutional injury. We assume that a jury could properly find in this case that Sheriff Moore’s assessment of Burns’ background was inadequate. Sheriff Moore’s own testimony indicated that he did not inquire into the underlying conduct or the disposition of any of the misdemeanor charges reflected on Burns’ record before hiring him. But this showing of an instance of inadequate screening is not enough to establish “deliberate indifference.” In layman’s terms, inadequate screening of an applicant’s record may reflect “indifference” to the applicant’s background. For purposes of a legal inquiry into municipal liability under § 1983, however, that is not the relevant “indifference.” A plaintiff must demonstrate that a municipal decision reflects deliberate indifference to the risk that a violation of a particular constitutional or statutory right will follow the decision. Only where adequate scrutiny of an applicant’s background would lead a reasonable policymaker to conclude that the plainly obvious consequence of the decision to hire the applicant would be the deprivation of a third party’s federally protected right can the official’s failure to adequately scrutinize the applicant’s background constitute “deliberate indifference.” Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals directly tested the link between Burns’ actual background and the risk that, if hired, he would use excessive force. The District Court instructed the jury on a theory analogous to that reserved in Canton. The court required respondent to prove that Sheriff Moore’s inadequate screening of Burns’ background was “so likely to result in violations of constitu tional rights” that the Sheriff could “reasonably [be] said to have been deliberately indifferent to the constitutional needs of the Plaintiff.” App. 12B (emphasis added). The court also instructed the jury, without elaboration, that respondent was required to prove that the “inadequate hiring . . . policy directly caused the Plaintiff’s injury.” Ibid. As discussed above, a finding of culpability simply cannot depend on the mere probability that any officer inadequately screened will inflict any constitutional injury. Rather, it must depend on a finding that this officer was highly likely to inflict the particular injury suffered by the plaintiff. The connection between the background of the particular applicant and the specific constitutional violation alleged must be strong. What the District Court’s instructions on culpability, and therefore the jury’s finding of municipal liability, failed to capture is whether Burns’ background made his use of excessive force in making an arrest a plainly obvious consequence of the hiring decision. The Court of Appeals’ af-firmance of the jury’s finding of municipal liability depended on its view that the jury could have found that “inadequate screening of a deputy could likely result in the violation of citizens’ constitutional rights.” 67 F. 3d, at 1185 (emphasis added). Beyond relying on a risk of violations of unspecified constitutional rights, the Court of Appeals also posited that Sheriff Moore’s decision reflected indifference to “the public’s welfare.” Id., at 1184. Even assuming without deciding that proof of a single instance of inadequate screening could ever trigger municipal liability, the evidence in this case was insufficient to support a finding that, in hiring Burns, Sheriff Moore disregarded a known or obvious risk of injury. To test the link between Sheriff Moore’s hiring decision and respondent’s injury, we must ask whether a full review of Burns’ record reveals that Sheriff Moore should have concluded that Burns’ use of excessive force would be a plainly obvious consequence of the hiring decision. On this point, respondent’s showing was inadequate. To be sure, Burns’ record reflected various misdemeanor infractions. Respondent claims that the record demonstrated such a strong propensity for violence that Burns’ application of excessive force was highly likely. The primary charges on which respondent relies, however, are those arising from a fight on a college campus where Burns was a student. In connection with this single incident, Burns was charged with assault and battery, resisting arrest, and public drunkenness. In January 1990, when he pleaded guilty to those charges, Burns also pleaded guilty to various driving-related offenses, including nine moving violations and a charge of driving with a suspended license. In addition, Burns had previously pleaded guilty to being in actual physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated. The fact that Burns had pleaded guilty to traffic offenses and other misdemeanors may well have made him an extremely poor candidate for reserve deputy. Had Sheriff Moore fully reviewed Burns’ record, he might have come to precisely that conclusion. But unless he would necessarily have reached that decision because Burns’ use of excessive force would have been a plainly obvious consequence of the hiring decision, Sheriff Moore’s inadequate scrutiny of Burns’ record cannot constitute “deliberate indifference” to respondent’s federally protected right to be free from a use of excessive force. Justice Souter’s reading of the case is that the jury believed that Sheriff Moore in fact read Burns’ entire record. Post, at 426-427. That is plausible, but it is also irrelevant. It is not sufficient for respondent to show that Sheriff Moore read Burns’ record and therefore hired Burns with knowledge of his background. Such a decision may reflect indifference to Burns’ record, but what is required is deliberate indifference to a plaintiff’s constitutional right. That is, whether Sheriff Moore failed to examine Burns’ record, partially examined it, or fully examined it, Sheriff Moore’s hiring decision could not have been “deliberately indifferent” unless in light of that record Burns’ use of excessive force would have been a plainly obvious consequence of the hiring decision. Because there was insufficient evidence on which a jury could base a finding that Sheriff Moore’s decision to hire Burns reflected conscious disregard of an obvious risk that a use of excessive force would follow, the District Court erred in submitting respondent’s inadequate screening claim to the jury. III Cases involving 'constitutional injuries allegedly traceable to an ill-considered hiring decision pose the greatest risk that a municipality will be held liable for an injury that it did not cause. In the broadest sense, every injury is traceable to a hiring decision. Where a court fails to adhere to rigorous requirements of culpability and causation, municipal liability collapses into respondeat superior liability. As we recognized in Monell and have repeatedly reaffirmed, Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless deliberate action attributable to the municipality directly caused a deprivation of federal rights. A failure to apply stringent culpability and causation requirements raises serious federalism concerns, in that it risks constitutionalizing particular hiring requirements that States have themselves elected not to impose. Cf. Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S., at 392. Bryan County is not liable for Sheriff Moore’s isolated decision to hire Burns without adequate screening, because respondent has not demonstrated that his decision reflected a conscious disregard for a high risk that Burns would use excessive force in violation of respondent’s federally protected right. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. In suggesting that our decision complicates this Court’s § 1983 municipal liability jurisprudence by altering the understanding of culpability, Justice Souter and Justice Breyer misunderstand our approach. Post, at 422; post, at 430, 433-434. We do not suggest that a plaintiff in an inadequate screening case must show a higher degree of culpability than the “deliberate indifference” required in Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378 (1989); we need not do so, because, as discussed below, respondent has not made a showing of deliberate indifference here. See infra this page and 414. Furthermore, in assessing the risks of a decision to hire a particular individual, we draw no distinction between what is “so obvious” or “so likely to occur” and what is “plainly obvious.” The difficulty with the lower courts’ approach is that it fails to connect the background of the particular officer hired in this case to the particular constitutional violation the respondent suffered. Supra, at 412. Ensuring that lower courts link the background of the officer to the constitutional violation alleged does not complicate our municipal liability jurisprudence with degrees of “obviousness,” but seeks to ensure that a plaintiff in an inadequate screening ease establishes a policymaker’s deliberate indifference — that is, conscious disregard for the known and obvious consequences of his actions. Justice Souter implies that Burns’ record reflected assault and battery charges arising from more than one incident. Post, at 428. There' has never been a serious dispute that a single misdemeanor assault and battery conviction arose out of a single campus fight. Nor did petitioner’s expert testify that the record reflected any assault charge without a disposition, see 9 Record 535-536, although Justice Souter appears to suggest otherwise, post, at 428-429, n. 6. In fact, respondent’s own expert witness testified that Burns’ record reflected a single assault conviction. 7 Record 318; see also id., at 320. Petitioner has repeatedly so claimed. See, e. g., Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc in No. 93-5376 (CA5), p. 12 (“Burns had one misdemeanor assault convietion stemming from a campus fight”); Pet. for Rehearing of Substituted Opinion in No. 93-5376 (CA5), p. 11 (same); 3 Record 927 (Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict 10); Pet. for Cert. 16 (“Burns pled guilty to assault and battery” as a result of “one campus fight”). Respondent has not once contested this characterization. See, e. g., 3 Record 961 (Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Jury Verdict 4); Brief for Appellee/ Cross-Appellant Brown et al. in No. 93-5376 (CA5), pp. 3-4; Brief in Opposition 1. Indeed, since the characterization is reflected in the county’s petition for certiorari, under this Court’s Rule 15(2) respondent would have had an obligation in her brief in opposition to correct “any perceived misstatement” in the petition. She did not. Involvement in a single fraternity fracas does not demonstrate “a proclivity to violence against the person.” Post, at 429, n. 6. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, we must decide whether “accumulated profits” in the indirect tax credit provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 902 (1970 ed.), are to be measured in accordance with United States or foreign tax principles. We conclude that “accumulated profits” are to be measured in accordance with United States principles. I Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain) Limited (Goodyear G. B.) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear), a domestic corporation. Goodyear brought this suit seeking a refund of federal income taxes collected for the years 1970 and 1971. During those years, Goodyear G. B. filed income tax returns in, and paid taxes to, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Goodyear G. B. also distributed dividends to Goodyear, its sole shareholder. Goodyear reported these dividends on its federal tax return, as required by 26 U. S. C. §§301, 316 (1970 ed.). Goodyear thereafter sought credit for a portion of the foreign taxes paid by Goodyear G. B. in the amount specified in § 902. Section 902 provides a parent of a foreign subsidiary with an “indirect” or “deemed paid” credit on its domestic income tax return to reflect foreign taxes paid by its subsidiary. The credit protects domestic corporations that operate through foreign subsidiaries from double taxation of the same income: taxation first by the foreign jurisdiction, when the income is earned by the subsidiary, and second by the United States, when the income is received as a dividend by the parent. In some circumstances, a foreign subsidiary may choose to distribute only a portion of its available profit as a dividend to its domestic parent. For that reason, a domestic parent cannot automatically claim credit for all foreign taxes paid by its subsidiary: §902 limits a domestic parent’s credit to the amount of tax paid by the subsidiary attributable to the dividend issued. The foreign tax deemed paid by the domestic parent is calculated by multiplying the total foreign tax paid (T) by that portion of the subsidiary’s after-tax accumulated profits (AP-T) that is actually issued to the domestic parent in the form of a taxable dividend (D). In 1978, Goodyear G. B. reported a net loss on its British tax return and carried back that loss to offset substantial portions of its 1970 and 1971 income. Based on the 1973 carried-back losses, British taxing authorities recalculated Goodyear G. B.’s income and tax liability for the years 1970 and 1971. Goodyear G. B. thereafter received a refund of a substantial portion of its 1970 and 1971 foreign tax payments. In response to the refunds, and pursuant to § 905(c) of the Code which permits redetermination of the foreign tax credit whenever “any tax paid is refunded in whole or in part,” the Commissioner of Internal Revenue recalculated the indirect tax credit available to Goodyear for the tax years 1970 and 1971. The Commissioner lowered the foreign taxes paid (T) to reflect the refund. He refused, however, to lower accumulated profits (AP) for those years to reflect British tax authorities’ redetermination of Goodyear G. B.’s income. The deductions that created, for British tax purposes, the 1973 loss would not have been allowable in the computation of United States income tax if Goodyear G. B. had been a United States corporation filing a United States return. See App. 19-29 (Stipulation of Facts). In the Commissioner’s view, accumulated profits are to be calculated in accordance with United States tax principles; accordingly, the Commissioner regarded Goodyear G. B.’s 1970 and 1971 accumulated profits as unaffected by the deductions allowed under British law. In view of the reduced amount of Goodyear’s tax deemed paid, the Commissioner assessed substantial tax deficiencies for the tax years 1970 and 1971. Goodyear paid the deficiencies and, following the IRS’ denial of its administrative refund claim, brought this action in the United States Claims Court, averring that foreign tax law principles govern the calculation of “accumulated profits” in §902’s tax credit. Calculating “accumulated profits” in accordance with British tax law principles, Goodyear maintained that Goodyear G. B.’s after-tax accumulated profits for 1970 and 1971 were insufficient to cover the dividends paid in those years. In such a circumstance, § 902 requires that, for the purpose of computing the indirect credit, the excess of the dividend be deemed paid out of the after-tax accumulated profits of the preceding year. If in that year the remaining portion of the dividend exceeds the after-tax accumulated profits, the remainder of the dividend is allocated or “sourced” to the next most recent year, until the dividend is exhausted. Thus, Goodyear argued that the dividends it received from Goodyear G. B. in 1970 and 1971 should have been sourced to prior tax years, 1968 and 1969, until Goodyear G. B.’s after-tax accumulated profits covered the dividends. Through this sourcing mechanism, Goodyear would, in computing its domestic tax liability for the dividends issued by Goodyear G. B., receive credit for a portion of the foreign taxes paid by Goodyear G. B. in 1968 and 1969. Because Goodyear G. B. paid substantial foreign taxes in those tax years, allocation of the dividend to those years would yield a tax deemed paid by Goodyear in excess of £1 million, over four times greater than the tax the Commissioner deemed paid. If the term “accumulated profits” is defined in accordance with domestic tax principles, as the Commissioner advocated, the dividends issued in 1970 and 1971 are fully exhausted by the accumulated profits of those years, resulting in a tax deemed paid of £247,124. The Claims Court rejected Goodyear’s claim. 14 Cl. Ct. 23 (1987). Viewing the statutory definition of “accumulated profits” in §902(c)(1)(A) as inconclusive, id., at 28-29, the court turned to the purposes underlying § 902 and found that they favored calculation of “accumulated profits” in accordance with United States tax concepts, id., at 29-31. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed. 856 F. 2d 170 (1988). The court held that the “plain meaning” of § 902 “requires [accumulated profits] to be determined under foreign law.” Id., at 172. The court also held that the fundamental congressional purpose underlying § 902, “ ‘elimination of international double taxation,’” ibid, (quoting H. H. Robertson Co. v. Commissioner, 59 T. C. 53, 74 (1972), aff’d, 500 F. 2d 1399 (CA3 1974)), would be defeated if the taxes paid by a foreign subsidiary, but not its accumulated profits, were calculated in terms of foreign law. 856 F. 2d, at 172. The Court of Appeals’ decision has important consequences for the calculation of the indirect tax credit of domestic parents that have received dividends from their subsidiaries abroad. To clarify the operation of the § 902 credit in the tax years to which it applies, we granted certiorari, 490 U. S. 1045 (1989), and now reverse. 1 1 — I Our starting point, as in all cases involving statutory interpretation, “must be the language employed by Congress.” Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330, 337 (1979). We find that the text of § 902 does not resolve whether “accumulated profits” are to be calculated in accordance with foreign or domestic tax concepts. It is true, as the Court of Appeals emphasized, that §§ 902 (a)(1) and 902(c)(1)(A) link “accumulated profits” to the foreign tax imposed on the subsidiary. The link is forged by describing the foreign tax as that tax imposed “on or with respect to” accumulated profits. The provisions also, however, link “accumulated profits” to “dividends” by describing “accumulated profits” as the pool from which the “dividends” are issued. Section 316(a), in turn, makes clear that domestic principles control whether a payment is a “dividend” subject to domestic tax. On the basis of this link, a leading treatise has concluded that “[ajccumulated profits of the foreign corporation . . . are, in general, equated with earnings and profits of the foreign corporation and are determined in accordance with domestic law principles.” B. Bittker & J. Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders ¶17.11, p. 17-44 (5th ed. 1987) (“Adoption of these principles has the virtue of correlating the denominator of the § 902 computation with the definition of dividends (the numerator), thus avoiding the possible distortions that could arise if different definitional approaches were used for the numerator and denominator of the §902 fraction”). Because § 902 relates “accumulated profits” both to the foreign tax paid by the subsidiary, calculated in accordance with foreign law, and to the dividend issued by the subsidiary, calculated in accordance with domestic law, we are unpersuaded that the statutory language is dispositive. We must therefore look beyond the statute’s language to the legislative history, purposes, and operation of the indirect tax credit. Ill A The history of the indirect credit clearly demonstrates that the credit was intended to protect a domestic parent from double taxation of its income. Congress first established the indirect tax credit in § 240(c) of the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1082, permitting a domestic parent to receive a credit for a portion of the foreign taxes paid by its subsidiary during the year in which the subsidiary issued a dividend to the parent. This Court subsequently described the purpose of § 240 (c) as protection against double taxation. American Chicle Co. v. United States, 316 U. S. 450, 452 (1942); see also Bittker & Eustice, supra, at ¶17.11, p. 17-40. The legislative history of the indirect credit also clearly reflects an intent to equalize treatment between domestic corporations that operate through foreign subsidiaries and those that operate through unincorporated foreign branches. In § 238(e) of the Revenue Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 259, Congress amended § 240(c) to permit a domestic corporation to claim credit for taxes its subsidiary paid in years other than those in which the dividend was issued. Prior to the amendment, a domestic corporation could not receive credit for foreign taxes paid on distributed income if its subsidiary issued the dividend out of income earned in prior years, see 316 U. S., at 453, because § 240(c) limited the credit to taxes paid by the subsidiary “during the taxable year” in which the dividend was issued. The amendment corrected this deficiency by relating the credit to the accumulated profits out of which the dividends were paid. In defending the amended version of the indirect credit, one sponsor described the purpose of the credit as securing, for domestic corporations that receive income in the form of dividends from foreign subsidiaries, the same sort of deduction available to domestic corporations that receive income from foreign branches. 61 Cong. Rec. 7184 (1921). This goal of equalized treatment is reflected as well in testimony regarding the amendment before the Senate Committee on Finance, in which a spokesperson for the Department of the Treasury described the proposal as intended “to give this American corporation about the same credit as if conducting a branch.” Hearings on H. R. 8245 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, p. 389 (1921). More recently, the Senate Report on the 1962 amendments to the indirect credit confirms Congress’ intent to treat foreign branches and foreign subsidiaries alike in terms of the tax credits they generate for their domestic companies. See S. Rep. No. 1881, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 66-67 (1962). B Given these purposes, we now turn to the operation of the indirect tax credit. Goodyear contends that the failure to calculate accumulated profits in terms of foreign law subjects domestic corporations that receive dividends from their foreign subsidiaries to double taxation. This undesirable result occurs, in Goodyear’s view, because calculation of accumulated profits in accordance with domestic principles may disconnect the relationship in § 902’s formula between accumulated profits and the foreign tax paid by the subsidiary. A subsidiary incurs foreign tax liability in proportion to its foreign defined income. To recover foreign taxes paid by its subsidiary, a domestic parent’s dividend must be allocated or sourced to years in which its subsidiary paid foreign tax. If, however, accumulated profits are defined in domestic terms, the dividends of a domestic parent may be allocated to years in which the subsidiary paid little or no tax. In such a scenario, the parent may not be credited with foreign taxes paid by its subsidiary. To avoid this mismatching of accumulated profits and foreign tax, Goodyear contends that accumulated profits should be determined in accordance with the same principles that govern the imposition of the tax: those found in foreign law. The Government contests Goodyear’s characterization of this case as one of “double taxation.” In the Government’s view, the dividends received by Goodyear should not be allocated to prior years because to do so would permit Goodyear to avoid taxation altogether on domestically defined income that its subsidiary earned in 1970 and 1971. Under domestic rules, Goodyear G. B. earned sufficient income in 1970 and 1971 to cover the dividends it issued to Goodyear in those years. That British taxing authorities recognized little income in those years should not, in the Government’s view, prevent the United States from recognizing the substantial income attributable to those years under domestic rules. According to the Government, the foreign tax paid in 1968 and 1969 by Goodyear G. B.— the years to which Goodyear seeks to source its dividends — relates to income that Goodyear G. B. chose not to distribute during those years as dividends to Goodyear. To credit Goodyear with taxes paid on undistributed income, the Government concludes, would be inequitable because it would provide domestic parents that operate through foreign subsidiaries favorable treatment visa-vis' domestic corporations that use foreign branches. Goodyear attempts to avoid the force of the Government’s-analysis by exploring hypothetical situations in which the calculation of accumulated profits in accordance with domestic rules presents a more plausible claim of double taxation than does this case. For example, if a subsidiary earns an equal amount of income under foreign and domestic rules, but those rules regard the income as being earned in different years, the domestic parent would be credited with a lower portion of the tax paid by the subsidiary if domestic timing rules govern. This result appears anomalous because the same credit should be available where foreign and domestic tax principles recognize equal amounts of income and the amount of tax paid remains constant. The effect of the divergence in foreign and domestic tax principles is particularly clear when a subsidiary pays a substantial foreign tax in a given year and the amount of income recognized under domestic rules in that year is zero. In such a circumstance, none of the tax paid by the subsidiary can be credited to the parent because a dividend cannot be sourced to a year in which there are no accumulated profits. Goodyear’s hypotheticals persuade us that if accumulated profits are calculated according to domestic tax principles, situations can arise in which § 902’s statutory goal of avoiding double taxation will be disserved. Equally persuasive, however, is the Government’s claim that defining accumulated profits in terms of foreign tax principles can unfairly advantage domestic parents that operate through foreign subsidiaries over companies operating through unincorporated branches. Thus, no definitional approach to “accumulated profits” uniformly and unqualifiedly satisfies the dual purposes underlying the indirect credit. C We nonetheless believe that the Government’s interpretation of “accumulated profits” is more faithful to congressional intent. Our view is informed first and most significantly by our assessment that the risk of double taxation outlined by Goodyear is less substantial than the risk of unequal treatment cited by the Government. Defining “accumulated profits” in accordance with domestic tax concepts results in double taxation only when a dividend is sourced to a year in which domestic tax concepts recognize little or no income and yet a subsidiary pays substantial foreign tax. Goodyear offers no basis for the suggestion that such mismatching commonly occurs. Goodyear’s approach, on the other hand, leads to unequal tax treatment of subsidiaries and branches whenever the foreign taxing authority calculates income more or less generously than the United States. A domestic corporation must pay tax on all income of a foreign branch that is recognized under domestic law. Under Goodyear’s interpretation, a domestic corporation may in some cases receive credit for taxes paid on income that, under domestic rules, the parent never received. This result is difficult to square with the express congressional purpose of ensuring tax parity between domestic corporations that operate through foreign subsidiaries and those that operate through foreign branches. The Government’s approach is also supported by administrative interpretations of § 902. In defining the credits available against foreign tax under the predecessor to § 902, the Commissioner stated that “[i]t is important in establishing the amount of the accumulated profits that it be based as a fundamental principle upon all income of the foreign corporation available for distribution to its shareholders whether such profits be taxable by the foreign country or not.” I. T. 2676, XII-1 Cum. Bull. 48, 50 (1933) (emphasis added). The Commissioner’s approach requires a domestic assessment of income for the purposes of calculating accumulated profits. The Commissioner’s position is reflected as well in a formal regulation promulgated by the Treasury in 1965, Treas. Reg. § 1.902-3(c)(l), 26 CFR § 1.902-3(c)(l) (1972), which defines “accumulated profits” under § 902(a)(1) as “the sum of [t]he earnings and profits of [the foreign subsidiary] for such year, and [t]he foreign income taxes imposed on or with respect to the gains, profits, and income to which such earnings and profits are attributable.” Defining a subsidiary’s “accumulated profits” as its “earnings and profits” reflects an intent to calculate accumulated profits according to domestic principles, because “earnings and profits” in this context is a domestic tax concept. Lastly, we find support for the Government’s position in the statutory canon adopted in Biddle v. Commissioner, 302 U. S. 573, 578 (1938), that tax provisions should generally be read to incorporate domestic tax concepts absent a clear congressional expression that foreign concepts control. This canon has particularly strong application here where a contrary interpretation would leave an important statutory goal regarding equal tax treatment of foreign subsidiaries and foreign branches to the varying tax policies of foreign tax authorities. IV “Accumulated profits,” as that term appears in § 902’s indirect tax credit, should be calculated in accordance with domestic tax principles. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Section 902(a) provides: “For purposes of this subpart, a domestic corporation which owns at least 10 percent of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it receives dividends in any taxable year shall— “(1) to the extent such dividends are paid by such foreign corporation out of accumulated profits (as defined in subsection (c)(1)(A)) of a year for which such foreign corporation is not a less developed country corporation, be deemed to have paid the same proportion of any income, war profits, or excess profits taxes paid or deemed to be paid by such foreign corporation to any foreign country or to any possession of the United States on or with respect to such accumulated profits, which the amount of such dividends (determined without regard to section 78) bears to the amount of such accumulated profits in excess of such income, war profits, and excess profits taxes (other than those deemed paid). . . .” 26 U. S. C. § 902 (1970 ed.). The formula for calculating the §902 credit is as follows: The operation of this sourcing principle is described in General Foods Corp. v. Commissioner, 4 T. C. 209, 215 (1944). Calculation of the indirect credit for tax years beginning after 1986 is governed by the amended version of § 902 established by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 2528, 26 U. S. C. §902 (1982 ed., Supp. V). The amended version substantially overhauls the method of calculating the credit and removes the controversy regarding the definition of “accumulated profits.” The current version of § 902(c)(1) replaces “accumulated profits” with “undistributed earnings,” which are defined as the “earnings and profits of the foreign corporation (computed in accordance with sections 964 and 986).” Section 964(a) in turn provides that “the earnings and profits of any foreign corporation . . . shall be determined according to rules substantially similar to those applicable to domestic corporations." 26 U. S. C. §964(a) (1982 ed.). Senator Smoot stated: “[A] foreign subsidiary is much like a foreign branch of an American corporation. If the American corporation owned a foreign branch, it would include the earnings or profits of such branch in its total income, but it would also be entitled to deduct from the tax based upon such income any income or profits taxes paid to foreign countries by the branch in question. Without special legislation, however, no credit can be obtained where the branch is incorporated under foreign laws.” The 1962 amendment addresses a tax preference that results if a domestic parent is credited with foreign taxes paid on subsidiary income that is used to satisfy the subsidiary’s foreign tax obligations. In such a circumstance, the parent receives credit for taxes paid on undistributed income. This Court sought to eliminate this tax advantage in American Chicle Co. v. United States, 316 U. S. 450, 452 (1942), by including in the § 902 credit only those taxes paid on a subsidiary’s after-tax income. The 1962 amendment addressed the problem differently, permitting a domestic parent to include all foreign taxes paid in its § 902 calculation but also requiring the parent to treat such taxes as a deemed dividend from its subsidiary. The amendment thus requires domestic parents to “gross up” the dividend income they receive by the amount of the foreign taxes attributable to such income. See S. Rep. No. 1881, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 69 (1962). The Senate Report, describing the purpose of the amendment as removing an “unjustified tax advantage” for domestic parents, illustrates how foreign subsidiaries and foreign branches are treated unequally absent the “grossing up” requirement, even under the American Chicle rule. S. Rep. No. 1881, supra, at 66-67. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

L

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. The Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to “prescribe, as necessary, appropriate rules, regulations, orders, and standards for all areas of railroad safety.” 84 Stat. 971, 45 U. S. C. § 431(a). Finding that alcohol and drug abuse by railroad employees poses a serious threat to safety, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has promulgated regulations that mandate blood and urine tests of employees who are involved in certain train accidents. The FRA also has adopted regulations that do not require, but do authorize, railroads to administer breath and urine tests to employees who violate certain safety rules. The question presented by this case is whether these regulations violate the Fourth Amendment. I A The problem of alcohol use on American railroads is as old as the industry itself, and efforts to deter it by carrier rules began at least a century ago. For many years, railroads have prohibited operating employees from possessing alcohol or being intoxicated while on duty and from consuming alcoholic beverages while subject to being called for duty. More recently, these proscriptions have been expanded to forbid possession or use of certain drugs. These restrictions are embodied in “Rule G,” an industry-wide operating rule promulgated by the Association of American Railroads, and are enforced, in various formulations, by virtually every railroad in the country. The customary sanction for Rule G violations is dismissal. In July 1983, the FRA expressed concern that these industry efforts were not adequate to curb alcohol and drug abuse by railroad employees. The FRA pointed to evidence indicating that on-the-job intoxication was a significant problem in the railroad industry. The FRA also found, after a review of accident investigation reports, that from 1972 to 1983 “the nation’s railroads experienced at least 21 significant train accidents involving alcohol or drug use as a probable cause or contributing factor,” and that these accidents “resulted in 25 fatalities, 61 non-fatal injuries, and property damage estimated at $19 million (approximately $27 million in 1982 dollars).” 48 Fed. Reg. 30726 (1983). The FRA further identified “an additional 17 fatalities to operating employees working on or around rail rolling stock that involved alcohol or drugs as a contributing factor.” Ibid. In light of these problems, the FRA solicited comments from interested parties on a various regulatory approaches to the problems of alcohol and drug abuse throughout the Nation’s railroad system. Comments submitted in response to this request indicated that railroads were able to detect a relatively small number of Rule G violations, owing, primarily, to their practice of relying on observation by supervisors and co-workers to enforce the rule. 49 Fed. Reg. 24266-24267 (1984). At the same time, “industry participants... confirmed that alcohol and drug use [did] occur on the railroads with unacceptable frequency,” and available information from all sources “suggested] that the problem included] ‘pockets’ of drinking and drug use involving multiple crew members (before and during work), sporadic cases of individuals reporting to work impaired, and repeated drinking and drug use by individual employees who are chemically or psychologically dependent on those substances.” Id., at 24253-24254. “Even without the benefit of regular post-accident testing,” the FRA “identified 34 fatalities, 66 injuries and over $28 million in property damage (in 1983 dollars) that resulted from the errors of alcohol and drug-impaired employees in 45 train accidents and train incidents during the period 1975 through 1983.” Id., at 24254. Some of these accidents resulted in the release of hazardous materials and, in one case, the ensuing pollution required the evacuation of an entire Louisiana community. Id., at 24254, 24259. In view of the obvious safety hazards of drug and alcohol use by railroad employees, the FRA announced in June 1984 its intention to promulgate federal regulations on the subject. B After reviewing further comments from representatives of the railroad industry, labor groups, and the general public, the FRA, in 1985, promulgated regulations addressing the problem of alcohol and drugs on the railroads. The final regulations apply to employees assigned to perform service subject to the Hours of Service Act, ch. 2939, 34 Stat. 1415, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 61 et seq. The regulations prohibit covered employees from using or possessing alcohol or any controlled substance. 49 CFR §219.101(a)(1) (1987). The regulations further prohibit those employees from reporting for covered service while under the influence of, or impaired by, alcohol, while having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more, or while under the influence of, or impaired by, any controlled substance. §219.101(a)(2). The regulations do not restrict, however, a railroad’s authority to impose an absolute prohibition on the presence of alcohol or any drug in the body fluids of persons in its employ, §219.101(c), and, accordingly, they do not “replace Rule G or render it unenforceable.” 50 Fed. Reg. 31538 (1985). To the extent pertinent here, two subparts of the regulations relate to testing. Subpart C, which is entitled “Post-Accident Toxicological Testing,” is mandatory. It provides that railroads “shall take all practicable steps to assure that all covered employees of the railroad directly involved... provide blood and urine samples for toxicological testing by FRA,” § 219.203(a), upon the occurrence of certain specified events. Toxicological testing is required following a “major train accident,” which is defined as any train accident that involves (i) a fatality, (ii) the release of hazardous material accompanied by an evacuation or a reportable injury, or (iii) damage to railroad property of $500,000 or more. §219.201 (a)(1). The railroad has the further duty of collecting blood and urine samples for testing after an “impact accident,” which is defined as a collision that results in a reportable injury, or in damage to railroad property of $50,000 or more. § 219.201(a)(2). Finally, the railroad is also obligated to test after “[a]ny train incident that involves a fatality to any on-duty railroad employee.” §219.201(a)(3). After occurrence of an event which activates its duty to test, the railroad must transport all crew members and other covered employees directly involved in the accident or incident to an independent medical facility, where both blood and urine samples must be obtained from each employee. After the samples have been collected, the railroad is required to ship them by prepaid air freight to the FRA laboratory for analysis. § 219.205(d). There, the samples are analyzed using “state-of-the-art equipment and techniques” to detect and measure alcohol and drugs. The FRA proposes to place primary reliance on analysis of blood samples, as blood is “the only available body fluid... that can provide a clear indication not only of the presence of alcohol and drugs but also their current impairment effects.” 49 Fed. Reg. 24291 (1984). Urine samples are also necessary, however, because drug traces remain in the urine longer than in blood, and in some cases it will not be possible to transport employees to a medical facility before the time it takes for certain drugs to be eliminated from the bloodstream. In those instances, a “positive urine test, taken with specific information on the pattern of elimination for the particular drug and other information on the behavior of the employee and the circumstances of the accident, may be crucial to the determination of” the cause of an accident. Ibid. The regulations require that the FRA notify employees of the results of the tests and afford them an opportunity to respond in writing before preparation of any final investigative report. See § 219.211(a)(2). Employees who refuse to provide required blood or urine samples may not perform covered service for nine months, but they are entitled to a hearing concerning their refusal to take the test. §219.213. Subpart D of the regulations, which is entitled “Authorization to Test for Cause,” is permissive. It authorizes railroads to require covered employees to submit to breath or urine tests in certain circumstances not addressed by Sub-part C. Breath or urine tests, or both, may be ordered (1) after a reportable accident or incident, where a supervisor has a “reasonable suspicion” that an employee’s acts or omissions contributed to the occurrence or severity of the accident or incident, § 219.301(b)(2); or (2) in the event of certain specific rule violations, including noncompliance with a signal and excessive speeding, § 219.301(b)(3). A railroad also may require breath tests where a supervisor has a “reasonable suspicion” that an employee is under the influence of alcohol, based upon specific, personal observations concerning the appearance, behavior, speech, or body odors of the employee. § 219.301(b)(1). Where impairment is suspected, a railroad, in addition, may require urine tests, but only if two supervisors make the appropriate determination, §219.301(c)(2)(i), and, where the supervisors suspect impairment due to a substance other than alcohol, at least one of those supervisors must have received specialized training in detecting the signs of drug intoxication, §219.301(c)(2)(ii). Subpart D further provides that whenever the results of either breath or urine tests are intended for use in a disciplinary proceeding, the employee must be given the opportunity to provide a blood sample for analysis at an independent medical facility. § 219.303(c). If an employee declines to give a blood sample, the railroad may presume impairment, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, from a positive showing of controlled substance residues in the urine. The railroad must, however, provide detailed notice of this presumption to its employees, and advise them of their right to provide a contemporaneous blood sample. As in the case of samples procured under Subpart C, the regulations set forth procedures for the collection of samples, and require that samples “be analyzed by a method that is reliable within known tolerances.” §219.307(b). C Respondents, the Railway Labor Executives’ Association and various of its member labor organizations, brought the instant suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to enjoin the FRA’s regulations on various statutory and constitutional grounds. In a ruling from the bench, the District Court granted summary judgment in petitioners’ favor. The court concluded that railroad employees “have a valid interest in the integrity of their own bodies” that deserved protection under the Fourth Amendment. App. to Pet. for Cert. 53a. The court held, however, that this interest was outweighed by the competing “public and governmental interest in the... promotion of... railway safety, safety for employees, and safety for the general public that is involved with the transportation. ” Id., at 52a. The District Court found respondents’ other constitutional and statutory arguments meritless. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn. v. Burnley, 839 F. 2d 575 (1988). The court held, first, that tests mandated by a railroad in reliance on the authority conferred by Subpart D involve sufficient Government action to implicate the Fourth Amendment, and that the breath, blood, and urine tests contemplated by the FRA regulations are Fourth Amendment searches. The court also “agre[ed] that the exigencies of testing for the presence of alcohol and drugs in blood, urine or breath require prompt action which precludes obtaining a warrant.” Id., at 583. The court further held that “accommodation of railroad employees’ privacy interest with the significant safety concerns of the government does not require adherence to a probable cause requirement,” and, accordingly, that the legality of the searches contemplated by the FRA regulations depends on their reasonableness under all the circumstances. Id., at 587. The court concluded, however, that particularized suspicion is essential to a finding that toxicological testing of railroad employees is reasonable. Ibid. A requirement of individualized suspicion, the court stated, would impose “no insuperable burden on the government,” id., at 588, and would ensure that the tests are confined to the detection of current impairment, rather than to the discovery of “the metabolites of various drugs, which are not evidence of current intoxication and may remain in the body for days or weeks after the ingestion of the drug.” Id., at 588-589. Except for the provisions authorizing breath and urine tests on a “reasonable suspicion” of drug or alcohol impairment, 49 CFR §§219.301(b)(1) and (c)(2) (1987), the FRA regulations did not require a showing of individualized suspicion, and, accordingly, the court invalidated them. Judge Alarcon dissented. He criticized the majority for “failing] to engage in [a] balancing of interests” and for focusing instead “solely on the degree of impairment of the workers’ privacy interests.” 839 F. 2d, at 597. The dissent would have held that “the government’s compelling need to assure railroad safety by controlling drug use among railway personnel outweighs the need to protect privacy interests.” Id., at 596. We granted the federal parties’ petition for a writ of certio-rari, 486 U. S. 1042 (1988), to consider whether the regulations invalidated by the Court of Appeals violate the Fourth Amendment. We now reverse. II The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... The Amendment guarantees the privacy, dignity, and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of the Government or those acting at their direction. Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523, 528 (1967). See also Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 653-654 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 554 (1976). Before we consider whether the tests in question are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we must inquire whether the tests are attributable to the Government or its agents, and whether they amount to searches or seizures. We turn to those matters. A Although the Fourth Amendment does not apply to a search or seizure, even an arbitrary one, effected by a private party on his own initiative, the Amendment protects against such intrusions if the private party acted as an instrument or agent of the Government. See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113-114 (1984); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 487 (1971). See also Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465, 475 (1921). A railroad that complies with the provisions of Subpart C of the regulations does so by compulsion of sovereign authority, and the lawfulness of its acts is controlled by the Fourth Amendment. Petitioners contend, however, that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated by Subpart D of the regulations, as nothing in Sub-part D compels any testing by private railroads. We are unwilling to conclude, in the context of this facial challenge, that breath and urine tests required by private railroads in reliance on Subpart D will not implicate the Fourth Amendment. Whether a private party should be deemed an agent or instrument of the Government for Fourth Amendment purposes necessarily turns on the degree of the Government’s participation in the private party’s activities, cf. Lustig v. United States, 338 U. S. 74, 78-79 (1949) (plurality opinion); Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28, 32-33 (1927), a question that can only be resolved “in light of all the circumstances,” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, at 487. The fact that the Government has not compelled a private party to perform a search does not, by itself, establish that the search is a private one. Here, specific features of the regulations combine to convince us that the Government did more than adopt a passive position toward the underlying private conduct. The regulations, including those in Subpart D, pre-empt state laws, rules, or regulations covering the same subject matter, 49 CFR §219.13(a) (1987), and are intended to supersede “any provision of a collective bargaining agreement, or arbitration award construing such an agreement,” 50 Fed. Reg. 31552 (1985). They also confer upon the FRA the right to receive certain biological samples and test results procured by railroads pursuant to Subpart D. §219.11(c). In addition, a railroad may not divest itself of, or otherwise compromise by contract, the authority conferred by Subpart D. As the FRA explained, such “authority... is conferred for the purpose of promoting the public safety, and a railroad may not shackle itself in a way inconsistent with its duty to promote the public safety.” 50 Fed. Reg. 31552 (1985). Nor is a covered employee free to decline his employer’s request to submit to breath or urine tests under the conditions set forth in Subpart D. See § 219.11(b). An employee who refuses to submit to the tests must be withdrawn from covered service. See 4 App. to Field Manual 18. In light of these provisions, we are unwilling to accept petitioners’ submission that tests conducted by private railroads in reliance on Subpart D will be primarily the result of private initiative. The Government has removed all legal barriers to the testing authorized by Subpart D, and indeed has made plain not only its strong preference for testing, but also its desire to share the fruits of such intrusions. In addition, it has mandated that the railroads not bargain away the authority to perform tests granted by Subpart D. These are clear indices of the Government’s encouragement, endorsement, and participation, and suffice to implicate the Fourth Amendment. B Our precedents teach that where, as here, the Government seeks to obtain physical evidence from a person, the Fourth Amendment may be relevant at several levels. See, e. g., United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1, 8 (1973). The initial detention necessary to procure the evidence may be a seizure of the person, Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 294-295 (1973); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721, 726-727 (1969), if the detention amounts to a meaningful interference with his freedom of movement. INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210, 215 (1984); United States v. Jacobsen, supra, at 113, n. 5. Obtaining and examining the evidence may also be a search, see Cupp v. Murphy, supra, at 295; United States v. Dionisio, supra, at 8, 13-14, if doing so infringes an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, see, e. g., California v. Greenwood, 486 U. S. 35, 43 (1988); United States v. Jacobsen, supra, at 113. We have long recognized that a “compelled intrusio[n] into the body for blood to be analyzed for alcohol content” must be deemed a Fourth Amendment search. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 767-768 (1966). See also Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753, 760 (1985). In light of our society’s concern for the security of one’s person, see, e. g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 9 (1968), it is obvious that this physical intrusion, penetrating beneath the skin, infringes an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. The ensuing chemical analysis of the sample to obtain physiological data is a further invasion of the tested employee’s privacy interests. Cf. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U. S. 321, 324-325 (1987). Much the same is true of the breath-testing procedures required under Subpart D of the regulations. Subjecting a person to a breathalyzer test, which generally requires the production of alveolar or “deep lung” breath for chemical analysis, see, e. g., California v. Trombetta, 467 U. S. 479, 481 (1984), implicates similar concerns about bodily integrity and, like the blood-alcohol test we considered in Schmerber, should also be deemed a search, see 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 2.6(a), p. 463 (1987). See also Burnett v. Anchorage, 806 F. 2d 1447, 1449 (CA9 1986); Shoemaker v. Handel, 795 F. 2d 1136, 1141 (CA3), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 986 (1986). Unlike the blood-testing procedure at issue in Schmerber, the procedures prescribed by the FRA regulations for collecting and testing urine samples do not entail a surgical intrusion into the body. It is not disputed, however, that chemical analysis of urine, like that of blood, can reveal a host of private medical facts about an employee, including whether he or she is epileptic, pregnant, or diabetic. Nor can it be disputed that the process of collecting the sample to be tested, which may in some cases involve visual or aural monitoring of the act of urination, itself implicates privacy interests. As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has stated: “There are few activities in our society more personal or private than the passing of urine. Most people describe it by euphemisms if they talk about it at all. It is a function traditionally performed without public observation; indeed, its performance in public is generally prohibited by law as well as social custom.” National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 816 F. 2d 170, 175 (1987). Because it is clear that the collection and testing of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as reasonable, the Federal Courts of Appeals have concluded unanimously, and we agree, that these intrusions must be deemed searches under the Fourth Amendment. In view of our conclusion that the collection and subsequent analysis of the requisite biological samples must be deemed Fourth Amendment searches, we need not characterize the employer’s antecedent interference with the employee’s freedom of movement as an independent Fourth Amendment seizure. As our precedents indicate, not every governmental interference with an individuál’s freedom of movement raises such constitutional concerns that there is a seizure of the person. See United States v. Dionisio, supra, at 9-11 (grand jury subpoena, though enforceable by contempt, does not effect a seizure of the person); United States v. Mara, 410 U. S. 19, 21 (1973) (same). For present purposes, it suffices to note that any limitation on an employee’s freedom of movement that is necessary to obtain the blood, urine, or breath samples contemplated by the regulations must be considered in assessing the intrusiveness of the searches effected by the Government’s testing program. Cf. United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 707-709 (1983). I — f t — I I —! A To hold that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the drug and alcohol testing prescribed by the FRA regulations is only to begin the inquiry into the standards governing such intrusions. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709, 719 (1987) (plurality opinion); New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 337 (1985). For the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only those that are unreasonable. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U. S. 675, 682 (1985); Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S., at 768. What is reasonable, of course, “depends on all of the circumstances surrounding the search or seizure and the nature of the search or seizure itself.” United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U. S. 531, 537 (1985). Thus, the permissibility of a particular practice “is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S., at 654; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 (1976). In most criminal cases, we strike this balance in favor of the procedures described by the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Place, supra, at 701, and n. 2; United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297, 315 (1972). Except in certain well-defined circumstances, a search or seizure in such a case is not reasonable unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause. See, e. g., Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 586 (1980); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 390 (1978). We have recognized exceptions to this rule, however, “when ‘special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.’” Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U. S. 868, 873 (1987), quoting New Jersey v. T. L. O., supra, at 351 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment). When faced with such special needs, we have not hesitated to balance the governmental and privacy interests to assess the practicality of the warrant and probable-cause requirements in the particular context. See, e. g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, supra, at 873 (search of probationer’s home); New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 699-703 (1987) (search of premises of certain highly regulated businesses); O’Connor v. Ortega, supra, at 721-725 (work-related searches of employees’ desks and offices); New Jersey v. T. L. O., supra, at 337-342 (search of student’s property by school officials); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 558-560 (1979) (body cavity searches of prison inmates). The Government’s interest in regulating the conduct of railroad employees to ensure safety, like its supervision of probationers or regulated industries, or its operation of a government office, school, or prison, “likewise presents ‘special needs’ beyond normal law enforcement that may justify departures from the usual warrant and probable-cause requirements.” Griffin v. Wisconsin, supra, at 873-874. The hours of service employees covered by the FRA regulations include persons engaged in handling orders concerning train movements, operating crews, and those engaged in the maintenance and repair of signal systems. 50 Fed. Reg. 31511 (1985). It is undisputed that these and other covered employees are engaged in safety-sensitive tasks. The FRA so found, and respondents conceded the point at oral argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 46-47. As we have recognized, the whole premise of the Hours of Service Act is that “[t]he length of hours of service has direct relation to the efficiency of the human agencies upon which protection [of] life and property necessarily depends.” Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. ICC, 221 U. S. 612, 619 (1911). See also Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States, 244 U. S. 336, 342 (1917) (“[I]t must be remembered that the purpose of the act was to prevent the dangers which must necessarily arise to the employee and to the public from continuing men in a dangerous and hazardous business for periods so long as to render them unfit to give that service which is essential to the protection of themselves and those entrusted to their care”). The FRA has prescribed toxicological tests, not to assist in the prosecution of employees, but rather “to prevent accidents and casualties in railroad operations that result from impairment of employees by alcohol or drugs.” 49 CFR §219.1(a) (1987). This governmental interest in ensuring the safety of the traveling public and of the employees themselves plainly justifies prohibiting covered employees from using alcohol or drugs on duty, or while subject to being called for duty. This interest also “require[s] and justifies] the exercise of supervision to assure that the restrictions are in fact observed.” Griffin v. Wisconsin, supra, at 875. The question that remains, then, is whether the Government’s need to monitor compliance with these restrictions justifies the privacy intrusions at issue absent a warrant or individualized suspicion. B An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents. A warrant assures the citizen that the intrusion is authorized by law, and that it is narrowly limited in its objectives and scope. See, e. g., New York v. Burger, supra, at 703; United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 9 (1977); Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U. S., at 532. A warrant also provides the detached scrutiny of a neutral magistrate, and thus ensures an objective determination whether an intrusion is justified in any given case. See United States v. Chadwick, supra, at 9. In the present context, however, a warrant would do little to further these aims. Both the circumstances justifying toxicological testing and the permissible limits of such intrusions are defined narrowly and specifically in the regulations that authorize them, and doubtless are well known to covered employees. Cf. United States v. Biswell, 406 U. S. 311, 316 (1972). Indeed, in light of the standardized nature of the tests and the minimal discretion vested in those charged with administering the program, there are virtually no facts for a neutral magistrate to evaluate. Cf. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U. S. 367, 376 (1987) (Blackmun, J., concurring). We have recognized, moreover, that the government’s interest in dispensing with the warrant requirement is at its strongest when, as here, “the burden of obtaining a warrant is likely to frustrate the governmental purpose behind the search.” Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, supra, at 533. See also New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S., at 340; Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U. S. 594, 603 (1981). As the FRA recognized, alcohol and other drugs are eliminated from the bloodstream at a constant rate, see 49 Fed. Reg. 24291 (1984), and blood and breath samples taken to measure whether these substances were in the bloodstream when a triggering event occurred must be obtained as soon as possible. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S., at 770-771. Although the metabolites of some drugs remain in the urine for longer periods of time and may enable the FRA to estimate whether the employee was impaired by those drugs at the time of a covered accident, incident, or rule violation, 49 Fed. Reg. 24291 (1984), the delay necessary to procure a warrant nevertheless may result in the destruction of valuable evidence. The Government’s need to rely on private railroads to set the testing process in motion also indicates that insistence on a warrant requirement would impede the achievement of the Government’s objective. Railroad supervisors, like school officials, see New Jersey v. T. L. O., supra, at 339-340, and hospital administrators, see O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S., at 722, are not in the business of investigating violations of the criminal laws or enforcing administrative codes, and otherwise have little occasion to become familiar with the intricacies of this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. “Imposing unwieldy warrant procedures... upon supervisors, who would otherwise have no reason to be familiar with such procedures, is simply unreasonable.” Ibid. In sum, imposing a warrant requirement in the present context would add little to the assurances of certainty and regularity already afforded by the regulations, while significantly hindering, and in many cases frustrating, the objectives of the Government’s testing program. We do not believe that a warrant is essential to render the intrusions here at issue reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. C Our cases indicate that even a search that may be performed without a warrant must be based, as a general matter, on probable cause to believe that the person to be searched has violated the law. See New Jersey v. T. L. O., supra, at 340. When the balance of interests precludes insistence on a showing of probable cause, we have usually required “some quantum of individualized suspicion” before concluding that a search is reasonable. See, e. g., United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S., at 560. We made it clear, however, that a showing of individualized suspicion is not a constitutional floor, below which a search must be presumed unreasonable. Id., at 561. In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal, and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion, a search may be reasonable despite the absence of such suspicion. We believe this is true of the intrusions in question here. By and large, intrusions on privacy under the FRA regulations are limited. To the extent transportation and like restrictions are necessary to procure the requisite blood, breath, and urine samples for testing, this interference alone is minimal given the employment context in which it takes place. Ordinarily, an employee consents to significant restrictions in his freedom of movement where necessary for his employment, and few are free to come and go as they please during working hours. See, e. g., INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S., at 218. Any additional interference with a railroad employee’s freedom of movement that occurs in the time it takes to procure a blood, breath, or urine sample for testing cannot, by itself, be said to infringe significant privacy interests. Our decision in Schmerber v. California, supra, indicates that the same is true of the blood tests required by the FRA regulations. In that case, we held that a State could direct that a blood sample be withdrawn from a motorist suspected of driving while intoxicated, despite his refusal to consent to the intrusion. We noted that the test was performed in a reasonable manner, as the motorist’s “blood was taken by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices.” Id., at 771. We said also that the intrusion occasioned by a blood test is not significant, since such “tests are a commonplace in these days of periodic physical examinations and experience with them teaches that the quantity of blood extracted is minimal, and that for most people the procedure involves virtually no risk, trauma, or pain.” Ibid. Schmerber thus confirmed “society’s judgment that blood tests do not constitute an unduly extensive imposition on an individual’s privacy and bodily integrity.” Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S., at 762. See also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U. S. 553, 563 (1983) (“The simple blood-alcohol test is... safe, painless, Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Jackson delivered .the opinion of the Court. Petitioner brought suit under the Jones Act to recover damages for the death of her intestate son from injuries sustained during the. course of his employment by respondent. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court entered on a jury’s verdict in petitioner’s favor. This Court granted certiorari. Respondent operates a small fleet of sightseeing motorboats on the Illinois River in the vicinity of Starved Rock. The boats are navigated under Coast Guard regulations by personnel licensed by the Department of Commerce. Operations are necessarily restricted to summer months. Each fall the boats are beached and put up on blocks for the winter. In the spring each is overhauled before being launched for the season. The decedent, Thomas J. Desper, Jr., was first employed by respondent in .April, 1947, to help prepare the boats for their seasonal launching. In June of the same year he acquired the necessary operator’s license from the Department of Commerce and, for the remainder of that season, he' was employed as a boat operator. When the season, closed, he helped take the boats out of the water and block them up for the winter. His employment terminated December 19, 1947. Desper was re-employed March 15, 1948. There was testimony that he was then engaged for the season and was .to resume his operator’s duties when the boats were back in the water. For the time being, however, he was put to cleaning, painting, and waterproofing the-boats, preparing them for navigation. On the date of the accident, April 26th, the boats were still blocked up on land. Several men, Desper among them, were on board a moored barge, maintained by respondent as a machine shop, warehouse, waiting room and ticket office, engaged in painting life preservers for use on the boats. One man was working on a fire extinguisher. It exploded, killing him and Desper. The Jones Act confers a cause of action on “any seaman.” In opposition to petitioner’s suit under the Act, respondent contended that Desper, at the time of his death, was not a “seaman” within the meaning of the Act. Whether he was such a “seaman” is the critical issue in the case which reached this Court. Petitioner contends that the 1939 Amendment to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act extended the scope of the word “seaman,” as used in the Jones Act, to include those whose work “substantially affects” navigation. The Amendment provides that: “Any employee of a carrier, any part of whose duties as such employee shall be the furtherance of interstate or foreign commerce; or shall, in any way directly or closely and substantially, affect such commerce as above set forth shall ... be considered as being employed by such carrier in such commerce and shall be considered as entitled to the benefits of this chapter.” Petitioner reads with that Amendment the provision of the Jones Act that statutes “modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees” shall apply in a seaman’s action. We agree with the court below that the Amendment has no effect on the “right or remedy” of railway employees but merely redefines for the purposes of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act the scope of the word “employee” to include certain persons not theretofore covered, because they were not directly engaged in. interstate or foreign commerce. It does not extend the meaning of “seaman” in the Jones Act to. include one who was not a “seaman” before. Seamen were given the rights of railway employees by the Jones Act, but the-definition of “seaman” was never made dependent on the meaning of “employee” as used in legislation applicable to railroads. The next question is whether, without reference to this 1939 Amendment, decedent was a “seaman” at the time of his death. The many cases turning upon the question whether an individual was a “seaman” demonstrate that the matter depends largely on the facts of the particular case and the activity in which he was engaged at the time of injury. The facts in this case are unique. The work in which the decedent was engaged at the time of his death quite clearly was not that usually done by a “seaman.” The boats were not afloat and had neither captain nor crew. They were undergoing seasonal repairs, the work being of the kind that, in the case of larger vessels, would customarily be done by exclusively shore-based personnel. For a number of reasons the ships might not be launched, or he might not operate one. To be sure, he was a probable navigator in the near future, but the' law does not cover probable or expectant seamen but seamen in being. It is our conclusion that while engaged in such seasonal repair work Desper was not a “seaman” within the purview of the Jones Act. The distinct nature of the work is emphasized by the fact that there was no vessel engaged in navigation at the time of the decedent’s death. All had been “laid up for .the winter.” Hawn v. American S. S. Co., 107 F. 2d 999, 1000 (C. A. 2d Cir.); cf. Seneca Washed Gravel Corp. v. McManigal, 65 F. 2d 779, 780 (C. A. 2d Cir.). In the words of the court in Antus v. Interocean S. S. Co., 108 F. 2d 185, 187 (C. A. 6th Cir.), where it was held that oné who had been a member of a ship’s crew and was injured while preparing it for winter quarters could not maintain a Jones Act suit for his injuries: “The fact that he had been, or expected in the future to be, a seaman does not render maritime work which was not maritime in its nature.” Both petitioner and respondent filed applications with the Industrial Commission of Illinois seeking the benefits provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Act of that State. The Commission rendered an award in petitioner’s favor, but she states that she has taken an appeal to the appropriate state court on the ground that the Commission was “without jurisdiction.” She does not specify why she thinks so, but we surmise that her reason is to avoid conflict with her contention that exclusive jurisdiction in the premises is vested in the federal courts by the Jones. Act. We do not understand her to have taken the position that if the Jones Act is not applicable the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act is, and that the state Commission, therefore, is without jurisdiction in any event. The question of the applicability of the Longshoremen’s Act does not appear from the record to have been raised by either party in the courts below. Neither has raised it in this Court. We, therefore, find it inappropriate to resolve the conflict, if any, between the Illinois Compensation Act and the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Cf. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205; Parker v. Motor Boat Sales, 314 U. S. 244; Davis v. Department of Labor, 317 U. S. 249. We think the court below properly disposed of the ques-. tion presented. Accordingly, its judgment is Affirmed. Mr. Justice Rlack and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent, — J wnTild affirm the judgment óf thé District Court. 38 Stat. 1185, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688. 188 F. 2d 177. 342 U. S. 847. 38 Stat. 1185, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688, entitled “Recovery for injury to or death of seaman” provides that: “Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury m 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 case 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 regulat- ■ ing 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.” 53 Stat. 1404, 45 U. S. C. § 51. 44 Stat. 1424 as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq. The Court of Appeals, however, in phrasing the question presented in the case, advanced the proposition that if petitioner' was not entitled to recovery under the Jones Act she “is restricted to the remedy afforded by the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act ,•. .. .” We take that as meaning'that petitioner’s only federal remedy; if she cannot prevail under the. Jones Act, is in the Longshoremen’s Act.. It was not intended to decide whether she could uroceed under the state compensation act. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner was convicted of “assault with malice aforethought with intent to murder; repetition of offense.” The jury fixed the punishment at 10 years in the Texas State Penitentiary. On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed petitioner’s conviction. We granted certiorari, 386 U. S. 931. Petitioner was charged in a five-count indictment. In the first count the State alleged that he had cut one Bradley with a knife and had stabbed at Bradley’s throat with intent to kill. Pursuant to the Texas recidivist statutes, the remaining counts of the indictment consisted of allegations that petitioner had incurred four previous felony convictions: a Texas conviction for burglary, and three Tennessee convictions for forgery. If these allegations were found to be true, petitioner would be subject to a term of life imprisonment upon conviction of the offense charged in count one. Petitioner’s counsel filed a pretrial motion to quash the four counts of the indictment referring to the prior convictions for failure to apprise the defense of what the State would attempt to prove. The record is silent as to the court’s action on this motion. But when the indictment was read to the jury at the beginning of the trial, before any evidence was introduced, the four counts relating to the prior convictions were included. During the course of the trial, while the jury was present, the State offered into evidence a certified copy of one of the Tennessee convictions. The conviction read in part, “Came the Assistant Attorney-General for the State and the Defendant in proper person and without Counsel.” Petitioner’s counsel objected to the introduction of the record on the ground that the judgment on its face showed that petitioner was not represented by counsel in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. There was no indication in the record that counsel had been waived. The court stated that it would reserve ruling on the objection, apparently to give the State an opportunity to offer any of the other convictions into evidence. The State then offered a second version of the same Tennessee conviction which stated that petitioner had appeared “in proper person” but did not contain the additional words “without counsel.” This second version also stated that “After said jury had heard the evidence, argument of counsel, and the charge of the Court, they retired to consider of their verdict.” It is not clear, however, whether “counsel” was being used in the singular or plural, and in any event no explanation was offered for the discrepancy between the two records. Petitioner’s counsel objected to this second version on the same ground. The court again reserved its ruling. The State then offered into evidence a certified copy of the indictment in the prior Texas case. Petitioner’s counsel indicated he had no objection, and that record was received into evidence. Thereafter, testimony was offered concerning the judgment and sentence in the prior Texas case. After some testimony had been given, the jury was excused and the hearing continued out of its presence. At the conclusion of the hearing, petitioner’s attorney objected that the Texas judgment was void on its face under state law. The court sustained that objection, and the record of the Texas conviction was stricken from evidence. At the same time, the court sustained petitioner’s objection to the first version of the Tennessee conviction; but overruled the objection to the second version of the same conviction. The jury was then recalled and testimony was heard on the substantive offense charged. The next reference to the prior convictions was when the court instructed the jury not to consider the prior offenses for any purpose whatsoever in arriving at the verdict. Petitioner’s motion for a new trial was denied. In the Court of Criminal Appeals, petitioner argued, inter alia, that the court erred in permitting counts two through five of the indictment to be read to the jury at the beginning of the trial, and in failing to sustain petitioner’s objection to the admission into evidence of the second version of the Tennessee conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that since petitioner had not suffered the enhanced punishment provided by the recidivist statutes, and since the instruction to disregard the prior offenses had been given, no error was presented. We do not sit as a court of criminal appeals to review state cases. The States are free to provide such procedures as they choose, including rules of evidence, provided that none of them infringes a guarantee in the Federal Constitution. The recent right-to-counsel cases, starting with Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, are illustrative of the limitations which the Constitution places on state criminal procedures. Those limitations sometimes touch rules of evidence. The exclusion of coerced confessions is one example. Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227. The exclusion of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is another. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643. Still another is illustrated by Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400. In that case we held that a transcript of a preliminary hearing had to be excluded from a state criminal trial because the defendant had no lawyer at that hearing, and did not, therefore, have the opportunity to cross-examine the principal witness against him who since that time had left the State. The exclusionary rule that we fashioned was designed to protect the privilege of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. The same result must follow here. Gideon v. Wainwright established the rule that the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment was applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth, making it unconstitutional to try a person for a felony in a state court unless he had a lawyer or had validly waived one. And that ruling was not limited to prospective applications. See Doughty v. Maxwell, 376 U. S. 202; Pickelsimer v. Wainwright, 375 U. S. 2. In this case the certified records of the Tennessee conviction on their face raise a presumption that petitioner was denied his right to counsel in the Tennessee proceeding, and therefore that his conviction was void. Presuming waiver of counsel from a silent record is impermissible. Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506. To permit a conviction obtained in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright to be used against a person either to support guilt or enhance punishment for another offense (see Greer v. Beto, 384 U. S. 269) is to erode the principle of that case. Worse yet, since the defect in the prior conviction was denial of the right to counsel, the accused in effect suffers anew from the deprivation of that Sixth Amendment right. The admission of a prior criminal conviction which is constitutionally infirm under the standards of Gideon v. Wainwright is inherently prejudicial and we are unable to say that the instructions to disregard it made the constitutional error “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” within the meaning of Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18. Our decision last Term in Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, is not relevant to our present problem. In Spencer the prior convictions were not presumptively void. Moreover, the contention was that the guilt phase of the trial was prejudiced by the introduction of the evidence of prior crimes. As the Court noted, “[i]n the procedures before us ... no specific federal right — such as that dealing with confessions — is involved; reliance is placed solely on a general ‘fairness’ approach.” Id., at 565. In this case, however, petitioner’s right to counsel, a “specific federal right,” is being denied anew. This Court cannot permit such a result unless Gideon v. Wainwright is to suffer serious erosion. Reversed. The maximum penalty for a first conviction of assault with intent to murder is 25 years; the minimum penalty is two years. Tex. Pen. Code, Art. 1160 (Supp. 1966). Burgett v. State, 397 S. W. 2d 79 (1965). The statutes involved here are Articles 62 and 63 of the Tex. Pen. Code (1952). Article 62 provides: “If it be shown on the trial of a felony less than capital that the defendant has been before convicted of the same offense, or one of the same nature, the punishment on such second or other subsequent conviction shall be the highest which is affixed to the commission of such offenses in ordinary cases.” Article 63 provides: “Whoever shall have been three times convicted of a felony less than capital shall on such third conviction be imprisoned for life in the penitentiary.” Tex. Pen. Code, Art, 63 (1952). In petitioner’s amended motion for a new trial, which was denied by the court, he explained that the purpose of the pretrial motion was “so that defendant could establish their [the previous convictions alleged for enhancement] admissibility before they were read into the record in the presence of the jury; same reading into the record in the presence of the jury was prejudicial to defendant herein.” The court apparently withdrew consideration of the prior convictions from the jury since only the record of the one prior Tennessee conviction for forgery had been accepted. Thus, Article 63 could not be applied to petitioner. Further, since forgery could not be considered as an offense of the “same nature” as assault with intent to murder, Article 62 would not be applicable. See n. 3, supra. The State apparently did not attempt to introduce the records of the other two Tennessee convictions for forgery because the indictment showed that all of the convictions occurred on- the same date. To invoke the provisions of Article 63, each succeeding conviction must be subsequent in time to the previous conviction — both with respect to commission of the offense and to conviction. Cowan v. State, 172 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 355 S. W. 2d 521 (1962). See, e. g., Boyd v. United States, 142 U. S. 450; United States v. Clarke, 343 F. 2d 90 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1965). Cf. Waldron v. Waldron, 156 U. S. 361, 383; Throckmorton v. Holt, 180 U. S. 552; Lawrence v. United States, 357 F. 2d 434 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1966); United States v. DeDominicis, 332 F. 2d 207 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1964). What Mr. Justice Jackson said in Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U. S. 440, 445, 453 (concurring opinion), in the sensitive area of conspiracy is equally applicable in this sensitive area of repetitive crimes, “The naive assumption that prejudicial effects can be overcome by instructions to the jury ... all practicing lawyers know to be unmitigated fiction.” Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Burton delivered the opinion of the Court. This action for damages alleged to have been caused to the petitioner by the respondent’s use, in violation of the Safety Appliance Acts, of a railroad freight car not equipped with efficient hand brakes, presents the question whether the evidence at the trial, with the inferences that the jury justifiably could draw from it, was sufficient to support the verdict for the petitioner. We hold that it was. Thé action was brought in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the petitioner, John Myers, against his employer, the Reading Company. He claimed that he received personal injuries caused by the respondent’s use in interstate commerce, in its railroad yards at Port Richmond, Philadelphia, of a freight car equipped with a defective hand brake in violation of the Safety Appliance Acts requiring such cars to be equipped with “efficient hand brakes.” At the close of the evidence, respondent moved for a directed verdict. The motion was not granted, and the jury returned a verdict for $5,000 in favor of the petitioner. The respondent then moved to have the verdict set aside and to have judgment entered in its favor. On December 28, 1945, this motion was granted and judgment was so entered. 63 F. Supp. 817. On May 29, 1946, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment, per curiam. 155 F. 2d 523. We granted certiorari in order to review this procedure, in a case based upon a violation of the Safety Appliance Acts, in the light of our decision rendered on March 25, 1946, in Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U. S. 645, subsequent to the trial of this case. The petitioner testified to the following: On June 11, 1944, he was working for the respondent as a freight conductor in charge of a crew consisting of an engineer, a fireman and two brakemen. He had been employed by the respondent for six or seven years, rising from the rank of crossing watchman to that of conductor and, for five or six months immediately preceding June 11, he had worked practically every day in the job in which he was engaged when injured. At about nine o’clock that evening his crew moved a string of seven coal cars on to a yard track where the crew coupled those cars to three others. One of the brakemen, new on the job that day, made the coupling and the petitioner directed him “to tie the handbrakes on” — that is, to tighten them so as to insure against further movements of the cars on the slightly graded track. The brakeman did this, but before the petitioner left the cars he checked them over and saw that the brakes were not all on, because one brake chain, instead of being wrapped around the shaft, was hanging loose. He climbed up on the brake platform, eight feet above the ground, on the car where the hand brake was not set, and tried to set it by turning the brake wheel. While doing this, he carried his signaling lantern on his left arm with his hand through the handle. As to the condition and operation of the brake he testified: “A. I was tightening the brake — it was kind of stiff and sticking — it was pretty hard to signal with the one hand and to get the brake on. “Q. With the ordinary brake wheel, do you have the difficulty that you had with this wheel? “A. Not ordinarily. “Q. What was the difference between this wheel and the ordinary wheel? “A. It was kind of stiff, and like a spring — like a shoe kicking back. “Q. And you star ted to try to set it? “A. That is right. “A. As I was tightening the brake — -just that quick- — -I felt something like the slack being run out, getting ready to uncouple. “Q. What did you feel on your car? “A. A quick jar, and I took this hand to signal ‘stop.’ (Indicating.) “Q. What did you signal? “A. I signaled ‘stop’ the best I could and hold on, but I went down; I lost my hold and down I went. “Q. What happened to the wheel on the handbrake while you were holding the wheel? “A. That kicked back. “Q. What do you mean by that? “A. I was putting it on this way (indicating), and it kicked right back off. “Q. Could you hold it? “A. No, I couldn’t. “Q. Was it pulled all the way on? “A. Oh, no. “Q. What happened to you? “A. Down I went.” The jury found, in a special verdict, that the brake was not an efficient brake; that its inefficiency contributed to or caused injuries to the petitioner; that the train did not move after the seven shifted cars were coupled to the three standing cars; and that the petitioner was not thrown from a moving train. The jury thus reached factual conclusions supporting its general verdict for the petitioner, and reducing the legal basis for recovery to the respondent’s use of a car not equipped with efficient hand brakes. The only question before us is whether there was sufficient probative evidence, with the inferences that the jury could draw from it, to support the verdict for the petitioner. There was an absolute and unqualified prohibition against the respondent’s using or permitting to be used, on its line, any car not equipped with “efficient hand brakes.” In speaking of a like prohibition, imposed by the same Section of the Safety Appliance Acts, against the use of any car not equipped with “secure hand holds or grab irons,” Mr. Chief Justice Hughes said: “This final question must be determined in the light of the nature of the obligation resting upon the carrier in relation to the use of a defective car. The statutory liability is not based upon the carrier’s negligence. The duty imposed is an absolute one and the carrier is not excused by any showing of care however assiduous.” Brady v. Terminal B. Assn., 303 U. S. 10,15, and cases there cited. See also, Atlantic City R. Co. v. Parker, 242 U. S. 56, 59 (automatic couplers required by 27 Stat. 531, 45 U. S. C. § 2); Great Northern R. Co. v. Otos, 239 U. S. 349, 351 (couplers); Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 559, 574-575; St. Louis & Iron Mountain R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 294-295 (couplers and drawbars) ; Spotts v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 102 F. 2d 160, 162 (hand brakes). This simplifies the issue beyond that presented in the ordinary case under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act where the plaintiff must establish the negligence of his employer. Here it is not necessary to find negligence. A railroad subject to the Safety Appliance Acts may be found liable if the jury reasonably can infer from the evidence merely that the hand brake which caused the injuries was on a car which the railroad was then using on its line, in interstate commerce, and that the brake was not an “efficient” hand brake. Furthermore— “There are two recognized methods of showing the inefficiency of hand brake equipment. Evidence may be adduced to establish some particular defect, or the same inefficiency may be established by showing a failure to function, when operated with due care, in the normal, natural, and usual manner.” Didinger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 39 F. 2d 798, 799. “Proof of an actual break or visible defect in a coupling appliance is not a prerequisite to a finding that the statute has been violated. Where a jury finds that there is a violation, it will be sustained, if there is proof that the mechanism failed to work efficiently and properly even though it worked efficiently both before and after the occasion in question. The test in fact is the performance of the appliance. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Auchenbach, 3 Cir., 16 F. 2d 550. Efficient means adequate in performance; producing properly a desired effect. Inefficient means not producing or not capable of producing the desired effect; incapable; incompetent; inadequate. . . . . . the testimony of plaintiff that the brake was used in the normal and usual manner and failed to work efficiently but did so inefficiently, throwing him to the ground, is such substantial evidence of inefficiency as to make an issue for the jury. Detroit, T. & I. R. Co. v. Hahn, 6 Cir., 47 F. 2d 59. In other words, we cannot say as a matter of law that any and all inferences which the jury might reasonably draw from the evidence would support only a verdict for defendant and not one for plaintiff.” Spotts v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., supra, at p. 162. See also, Wild v. Pitcairn, 347 Mo. 915, 149 S. W. 2d 800; and Newkirk v. Los Angeles Junction R. Co., 21 Cal. 2d 308, 131 P. 2d 535. The inefficiency of the brake in this case may have consisted of its defective condition or its defective functional operation resulting, in either case, in its knocking from the brake platform an experienced railroad man attempting to tighten or set the brake in the customary manner described in his testimony. That testimony was not descriptive of precise mechanical defects in the structure of the brake. It was, however, simple and direct testimony from which a jury reasonably might infer the brake’s defectiveness and its inefficiency in the sense necessary to establish a violation of the Safety Appliance Acts. After a brakeman had attempted to set all of the brakes, the chain on this brake still hung loose, indicating that it was not set. When the brake was partially tightened by an experienced freight conductor familiar with that kind of an operation, he found that it differed from the ordinary brake. He found that “it was kind of stiff, and like a spring — like a shoe kicking back.” While he was holding the wheel, before it was “pulled all the way on,” it “kicked back,” he couldn’t hold it, and “down” he went. This resulted in serious injuries to his hand and back. While different conclusions might be possible, the jury, which heard the testimony and saw the petitioner’s illustrations of his handling of the brake, reasonably could infer from that evidence that the condition of this brake and its action were not those of an efficient hand brake. The questions at issue were questions of fact. The jury was entitled to draw inferences from the evidence. From the evidence presented, the jury reasonably could find, as it did in its special verdict, (1) that the brake was not an efficient brake, and (2) that the fact that the brake was not an efficient brake contributed to or caused injury to the petitioner. In the face of this, the trial court erred in entering a judgment for the respondent in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict. The respondent is not subject, as has been suggested, to an absolute liability to its employees comparable to that established by a workmen’s compensation law. As an interstate common carrier, however, it is subject to liability for injuries to its employees resulting from its violation of its absolute duty to comply with the Safety Appliance Acts. The evidence here was sufficient to support the verdict for the petitioner, whether tested by the formula used by this Court in Improvement Co. v. Munson, 14 Wall. 442; Slocum v. New York Life Ins. Co., 228 U. S. 364; Tennant v. Peoria & P. U. R. Co., 321 U. S. 29; or Lavender v. Kurn, supra. The requirement is for probative facts capable of supporting, with reason, the conclusion expressed in the verdict. “Petitioner was required to present probative facts from which the negligence and the causal relation could reasonably be inferred. 'The essential requirement is that mere speculation be not allowed to do duty for probative facts, after making due allowance for all reasonably possible inferences favoring the party whose case is attacked.’ Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S. 372, 395; . . . .” Tennants. Peoria & P.U.R. Co., supra, at pp. 32-33. See also, Blair v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 323 U. S. 600; Brady v. Southern R. Co., 320 U. S. 476; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 288 U. S. 333, 343; Western & A. R. Co. v. Hughes, 278 U. S. 496; and Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U. S. 521, 524. “Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does a reversible error appear. But where, as here, there is an evidentiary basis for the jury’s verdict, the jury is free to discard or disbelieve whatever facts are inconsistent with its conclusion. And the appellate court’s function is exhausted when that evidentiary-basis becomes apparent, it being immaterial that the court might draw a contrary inference or feel that another conclusion is more reasonable.” Lavender v. Kurn, supra, at p. 653. We believe that the evidence given at the trial, with the inferences that the jury justifiably could draw from it, was sufficient to support the verdict originally rendered for the petitioner. Accordingly, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals sustaining the judgment entered for the respondent by the District Court is hereby Reversed. “Sec. 2. . . ., it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act [of April 14, 1910] to haul, or permit to be hauled or used on its line any car subject to the provisions of this Act not equipped with appliances provided for in this Act, to wit: All cars must be equipped with secure sill steps and efficient hand brakes; all cars requiring secure ladders and secure running boards shall be equipped with such ladders and running boards, and all cars having ladders shall also be equipped with secure hand holds or grab irons on their roofs at the tops of such ladders: . . . (Italics supplied.) 36 Stat. 298, 45 U. S. C. § 11. See note 1, supra. “Rule 50. Motion for a Directed Verdict. "(b) Reservation of Decision on Motion. . . . Within 10 days after the reception of a verdict, a party who has moved for a directed verdict may move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict; .... If a verdict was returned the court may allow the judgment to stand or may reopen the judgment and either order a new trial or direct the entry of judgment as if the requested verdict had been directed. . . .” Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further testimony stated that his injuries were due to this fall. Other testimony supported the petitioner's claim, under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, 53 Stat. 1404, 45 U. S. C. § 51, that the respondent was negligent in moving the train while the petitioner was trying to tighten the brake and without any direction from him. This charge, however, was disposed of by the special verdict of the jury, stating that the train did not move, thus strengthening the probative force of the testimony that the petitioner’s fall was caused by the stiffness and kickback of the brake. The special verdict was as follows: “1. Was the brake in question an efficient brake? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ [Answer] No. "2. If you find that the brake in question was not an efficient brake, did that fact contribute to or cause any injuries to the plaintiff? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ [Answer] Yes. “3. Did the train move after the seven shifted cars were coupled to the three standing cars? Answer 'yes’ or ‘no.’ [Answer] No. “4. If you find that the train moved after the cars were coupled, did that fact contribute to or cause any injuries sustained by the plaintiff? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ [Answer] No. “5. Was the plaintiff thrown from a moving train? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ [Answer] No. “6. Did the plaintiff become ill while walking on the ground, without having been thrown from the train ? Answer‘yes’ or ‘no.’ [Answer] No.” See note 1, supra. See Griswold v. Gardner, 155 F. 2d 333, 334, 337. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. This ease concerns the scope of 28 U. S. C. § 2680, which carves out certain exceptions to the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity for torts committed by federal employees. Section 2680(c) provides that the waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to claims arising from the detention of property by “any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer.” Petitioner contends that this clause applies only to law enforcement officers enforcing customs or excise laws, and thus does not affect the waiver of sovereign immunity for his property claim against officers of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). We conclude that the broad phrase “any other law enforcement officer” covers all law enforcement officers. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the dismissal of petitioner’s claim. I Petitioner Abdus-Shahid M. S. Ali was a federal prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, from 2001 to 2003. In December 2003, petitioner was scheduled to be transferred to the United States Penitentiary Big Sandy (USP Big Sandy) in Inez, Kentucky. Before being transferred, he left two duffle bags containing his personal property in the Atlanta prison’s Receiving and Discharge Unit to be inventoried, packaged, and shipped to USP Big Sandy. Petitioner was transferred, and his bags arrived some days later. Upon inspecting his property, he noticed that several items were missing. The staff at USP Big Sandy’s Receiving and Discharge Unit told him that he had been given everything that was sent, and that if things were missing he could file a claim. Many of the purportedly missing items were of religious and nostalgic significance, including two copies of the Qur’an, a prayer rug, and religious magazines. Petitioner estimated that the items were worth $177. Petitioner filed an administrative tort claim. In denying relief, the agency noted that, by his signature on the receipt form, petitioner had certified the accuracy of the inventory listed thereon and had thereby relinquished any future claims relating to missing or damaged property. Petitioner then filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, violations of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq. The BOP maintained that petitioner’s claim was barred by the exception in § 2680(c) for property claims against law enforcement officers. The District Court agreed and dismissed petitioner’s FTCA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Petitioner appealed. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing with the District Court’s interpretation of § 2680(c). 204 Fed. Appx. 778, 779-780 (2006) (per curiam). In rejecting petitioner’s arguments, the Court of Appeals relied on this Court’s broad interpretation of §2680(c)’s “detention” clause in Kosak v. United States, 465 U. S. 848, 854-859 (1984), on decisions by other Courts of Appeals, and on its own decision in Schlaebitz v. United States Dept. of Justice, 924 F. 2d 193, 195 (1991) (per curiam) (holding that United States Marshals, who were allegedly negligent in releasing a parolee’s luggage to a third party, were “law enforcement officers” under § 2680(c)). See 204 Fed. Appx., at 779-780. We granted certiorari, 550 U. S. 968 (2007), to resolve the disagreement among the Courts of Appeals as to the scope of § 2680(c). II In the FTCA, Congress waived the United States’ sovereign immunity for claims arising out of torts committed by federal employees. See 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b)(1). As relevant here, the FTCA authorizes “claims against the United States, for money damages ... for injury or loss of property . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” Ibid. The FTCA exempts from this waiver certain categories of claims. See §§ 2680(a)-(n). Relevant here is the exception in subsection (c), which provides that § 1346(b) shall not apply to “[a]ny claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax or customs duty, or the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer.” § 2680(c). This case turns on whether the BOP officers who allegedly lost petitioner’s property qualify as “other law enforcement officer[s]” within the meaning of § 2680(c). Petitioner argues that they do not because “any other law enforcement officer” includes only law enforcement officers acting in a customs or excise capacity. Noting that Congress referenced customs and excise activities in both the language at issue and the preceding clause in § 2680(c), petitioner argues that the entire subsection is focused on preserving the United States’ sovereign immunity only as to officers enforcing those laws. Petitioner's argument is inconsistent with the statute’s language. The phrase “any other law enforcement officer” suggests a broad meaning. Ibid, (emphasis added). We have previously noted that “[r]ead naturally, the word ‘any’ has an expansive meaning, that is, ‘one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind.’” United States v. Gonzales, 520 U. S. 1, 5 (1997) (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 97 (1976)). In Gonzales, we considered a provision that imposed an additional sentence for firearms used in federal drug trafficking crimes and provided that such additional sentence shall not be concurrent with “ ‘any other term of imprisonment.’” 520 U. S., at 4 (quoting 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1) (1994 ed.); emphasis deleted). Notwithstanding the subsection’s initial reference to federal drug trafficking crimes, we held that the expansive word “any” and the absence of restrictive language left “no basis in the text for limiting” the phrase “any other term of imprisonment” to federal sentences. 520 U. S., at 5. Similarly, in Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U. S. 578 (1980), the Court considered the phrase “any other final action” in amendments to the Clean Air Act. The Court explained that the amendments expanded a list of Environmental Protection Agency Administrator actions by adding two categories of actions: actions under a specifically enumerated statutory provision, and “any other final action” under the Clean Air Act. Id., at 584 (emphasis deleted). Focusing on Congress’ choice of the word “any,” the Court “discern[ed] no uncertainty in the meaning of the phrase, ‘any other final action,’ ” and emphasized that the statute’s “expansive language offer[ed] no indication whatever that Congress intended” to limit the phrase to final actions similar to those in the specifically enumerated sections. Id., at 588-589. We think the reasoning of Gonzales and Harrison applies equally to the expansive language Congress employed in 28 U. S. C. § 2680(c). Congress’ use of “any” to modify “other law enforcement officer” is most naturally read to mean law enforcement officers of whatever kind. The word “any” is repeated four times in the relevant portion of § 2680(c), and two of those instances appear in the particular phrase at issue: “any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer.” (Emphasis added.) Congress inserted the word “any” immediately before “other law enforcement officer,” leaving no doubt that it modifies that phrase. To be sure, the text’s references to “tax or customs duty” and “officer[s] of customs or excise” indicate that Congress intended to preserve immunity for claims arising from an officer’s enforcement of tax and customs laws. The text also indicates, however, that Congress intended to preserve immunity for claims arising from the detention of property, and there is no indication that Congress intended immunity for those claims to turn on the type of law being enforced. Petitioner would require Congress to clarify its intent to cover all law enforcement officers by. adding phrases such as “performing any official law enforcement function,” or “without limitation.” But Congress could not have chosen a more all-encompassing phrase than “any other law enforcement officer” to express that intent. We have no reason to demand that Congress write less economically and more repetitiously. Recent amendments to § 2680(c) support the conclusion that “any other law enforcement officer” is not limited to officers acting in a customs or excise capacity. In the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, Congress added subsections (c)(l)-(c)(4) to 28 U.S.C. § 2680. §3(a), 114 Stat. 211. As amended, § 2680(c) provides that the § 1346(b) waiver of sovereign immunity, notwithstanding the exception at issue in this case, applies to: “[A]ny claim based on injury or loss of goods, merchandise, or other property, while in the possession of any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer, if— “(1) the property was seized for the purpose of forfeiture under any provision of Federal law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense; “(2) the interest of the claimant was not forfeited; “(3) the interest of the claimant was not remitted or mitigated (if the property was subject to forfeiture); and “(4) the claimant was not convicted of a crime for which the interest of the claimant in the property was subject to forfeiture under a Federal criminal forfeiture law.” The amendment does not govern petitioner’s claim because his property was not “seized for the purpose of forfeiture,” as required by paragraph (1). Nonetheless, the amendment is relevant because our construction of “any other law enforcement officer” must, to the extent possible, ensure that the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent. See Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U. S. 337, 340 (1997) (citing United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235, 240 (1989)). The amendment canceled the exception - and thus restored the waiver of sovereign immunity - for certain seizures of property based on any federal forfeiture law. See 28 U. S. C. § 2680(c)(1) (excepting property claims if “the property was seized for the purpose of forfeiture under any provision of Federal law providing for the forfeiture of property” (emphasis added)). Under petitioner’s interpretation, only law enforcement officers enforcing customs or excise laws were immune under the prior version of § 2680(c). Thus, on petitioner’s reading, the amendment’s only effect was to restore the waiver for cases in which customs or excise officers, or officers acting in such a capacity, enforce forfeiture laws. This strikes us as an implausible interpretation of the statute. If that were Congress’ intent, it is not apparent why Congress would have restored the waiver with respect to the enforcement of all civil forfeiture laws instead of simply those related to customs or excise. Petitioner’s interpretation makes sense only if we assume that Congress went out of its way to restore the waiver for cases in which customs or excise officers, or officers acting in such a capacity, enforce forfeiture laws unrelated to customs or excise. But petitioner fails to demonstrate that customs or excise officers, or officers acting in such a capacity, ever enforce civil forfeiture laws unrelated to customs or excise, much less that they do so with such frequency that Congress is likely to have singled them out in the amendment. It seems far more likely that Congress restored the waiver for officers enforcing any civil forfeiture law because, in its view, all such officers were covered by the exception to the waiver prior to the amendment. Against this textual and structural evidence that “any other law enforcement officer” does in fact mean any other law enforcement officer, petitioner invokes numerous canons of statutory construction. He relies primarily on ejusdem generis, or the principle that “when a general term follows a specific one, the general term should be understood as a reference to subjects akin to the one with specific enumeration.” Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Train Dispatchers, 499 U. S. 117, 129 (1991). In petitioner’s view, “any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer” should be read as a three-item list, and the final, catchall phrase “any other law enforcement officer” should be limited to officers of the same nature as the preceding specific phrases. Petitioner likens his case to two recent cases in which we found the canon useful. In Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U. S. 371, 375 (2003), we considered the clause “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process” in 42 U. S. C. § 407(a). Applying ejusdem generis, we concluded that “other legal process” was limited to legal processes of the same nature as the specific items listed. 537 U. S., at 384-385. The department’s scheme for serving as a representative payee of the benefits due to children under its care, while a “legal process,” did not share the common attribute of the listed items, viz., “utilization of some judicial or quasi-judicial mechanism ... by which control over property passes from one person to another in order to discharge” a debt.. Id., at 385. Similarly, in Dolan v. Postal Service, 546 U. S. 481 (2006), the Court considered whether an exception to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the “ ‘loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter’ ” barred a claim that mail negligently left on the petitioner’s porch caused her to slip and fall. Id., at 485 (quoting 28 U. S. C. § 2680(b)). Noting that “loss” and “miscarriage” both addressed “failings in the postal obligation to deliver mail in a timely manner to the right address,” 546 U. S., at 487, the Court concluded that “negligent transmission” must be similarly limited, id., at 486-489, and rejected the Government’s argument that the exception applied to “all torts committed in the course of mail delivery,” id., at 490. Petitioner asserts that § 2680(c), like the clauses at issue in Keffeler and Dolan, “‘presents a textbook ejusdem generis scenario.’” Brief for Petitioner 15 (quoting Andrews v. United States, 441 F. 3d 220, 224 (CA4 2006)). We disagree. The structure of the phrase “any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer” does not lend itself to application of the canon. The phrase is disjunctive, with one specific and one general category, not — like the clauses at issue in Keffeler and Dolan — a list of specific items separated by commas and followed by a general or collective term. The absence of a list of specific items undercuts the inference embodied in ejusdem generis that Congress remained focused on the common attribute when it used the catchall phrase. Cf. United States v. Aguilar, 515 U. S. 593, 615 (1995) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (rejecting the canon’s applicability to an omnibus clause that was “one of... several distinct and independent prohibitions” rather than “a general or collective term following a list of specific items to which a particular statutory command is applicable”). Moreover, it is not apparent what common attribute connects the specific items in § 2680(c). Were we to use the canon to limit the meaning of “any other law enforcement officer,” we would be required to determine the relevant limiting characteristic of “officer of customs or excise.” In Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U. S. 303 (1961), for example, the Court invoked noscitur a sociis in limiting the scope of the term “'discovery’” to the common characteristic it shared with '"exploration”’ and '"prospecting.”’ Id., at 307. The Court noted that all three words in conjunction “describe[d] income-producing activity in the oil and gas and mining industries.” Ibid. Here, by contrast, no relevant common attribute immediately appears from the phrase “officer of customs or excise.” Petitioner suggests that the common attribute is that both types of officers are charged with enforcing the customs and excise laws. But we see no reason why that should be the relevant characteristic as opposed to, for example, that officers of that type are commonly involved in the activities enumerated in the statute: the assessment and collection of taxes and customs duties and the detention of property. Petitioner’s appeals to other interpretive principles are also unconvincing. Petitioner contends that his reading is supported by the canon noscitur a sociis, according to which “ ‘a word is known by the company it keeps.’ ” S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection, 547 U. S. 370, 378 (2006). But the cases petitioner cites in support of applying noscitur a sociis involved statutes with stronger contextual cues. See Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U. S. 250, 254-258 (2000) (applying the canon to narrow the relevant phrase, “any election,” where it was closely surrounded by six specific references to gubernatorial elections); Jarecki, supra, at 306-309 (applying the canon to narrow the term “discoveries” to discoveries of mineral resources where it was contained in a list of three words, all of which applied to the oil, gas, and mining industries and could not conceivably all apply to any other industry). Here, although customs and excise áre mentioned twice in § 2680(c), nothing in the overall statutory context suggests that customs and excise officers were the exclusive focus of the provision. The emphasis in subsection (c) on customs and excise is not inconsistent with the conclusion that “any other law enforcement officer” sweeps as broadly as its language suggests. Similarly, the rule against superfluities lends petitioner sparse support. The construction we adopt today does not necessarily render “any officer of customs or excise” superfluous; Congress may have simply intended to remove any doubt that officers of customs or excise were included in “law enforcement officer[s].” See Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA, 495 U. S. 641, 646 (1990) (noting that “technically unnecessary” examples may have been “inserted out of an abundance of caution”). Moreover, petitioner’s construction threatens to render “any other law enforcement officer” superfluous because it is not clear when, if ever, “other law enforcement officer[s]” act in a customs or excise capacity. In any event, we do not woodenly apply limiting principles every time Congress includes a specific example along with a general phrase. See Harrison, 446 U. S., at 589, n. 6 (rejecting an argument that ejusdem generis must apply when a broad interpretation of the clause could render the specific enumerations unnecessary). In the end, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s attempt to create ambiguity where the statute’s text and structure suggest none. Had Congress intended to limit §2680(c)’s reach as petitioner contends, it easily could have written “any other law enforcement officer acting in a customs or excise capacity.” Instead, it used the unmodified, all-encompassing phrase “any other law enforcement officer.” Nothing in the statutory context requires a narrowing construction — indeed, as we have explained, the statute is most consistent and coherent when “any other law enforcement officer” is read to mean what it literally says. See Norfolk & Western R. Co., 499 U. S., at 129 (noting that interpretive canons must yield “when the whole context dictates a different conclusion”). It bears emphasis, moreover, that § 2680(c), far from maintaining sovereign immunity for the entire universe of claims against law enforcement officers, does so only for claims “arising in respect of” the “detention” of property. We are not at liberty to rewrite the statute to reflect a meaning we deem more desirable. Instead, we must give effect to the text Congress enacted: Section 2680(c) forecloses lawsuits against the United States for the unlawful detention of property by “any,” not just “some,” law enforcement officers. III For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is Affirmed. The Eleventh Circuit joined five other Courts of Appeals in construing § 2680(c) to encompass all law enforcement officers. See Bramwell v. Bureau of Prisons, 348 F. 3d 804, 806-807 (CA9 2003); Chapa v. United States Dept. of Justice, 339 F. 3d 388, 390 (CA5 2003) (per curiam); Hatten v. White, 275 F. 3d 1208, 1210 (CA10 2002); Cheney v. United States, 972 F. 2d 247, 248 (CA8 1992) (per curiam); Ysasi v. Rivkind, 856 F. 2d 1520, 1525 (CA Fed. 1988). Five other Courts of Appeals reached the contrary conclusion, interpreting the clause as limited to officers performing customs or excise functions. See ABC v. DEF, 500 F. 3d 103, 107 (CA2 2007); Dahler v. United States, 473 F. 3d 769, 771-772 (CA7 2007) (per curiam); Andrews v. United States, 441 F. 3d 220, 227 (CA4 2006); Bazuaye v. United States, 83 F. 3d 482, 486 (CADC 1996); Kurinsky v. United States, 33 F. 3d 594, 598 (CA6 1994). We assume, without deciding, that the BOP officers “detained” Ali’s property and thus satisfy § 2680(c)’s “arising in respect of. . . detention” requirement. The Court of Appeals held that the “detention” clause was satisfied, and petitioner expressly declined to raise the issue on certiorari. See 204 Fed. Appx. 778, 779-780 (CA11 2006) (per curiam); Brief for Petitioner 10-11, n. 9. We consider this question for the first time in this ease. Petitioner argues that this Court concluded in Kosak v. United States, 465 U. S. 848 (1984), that the phrase “any other law enforcement officer” is ambiguous. Reply Brief for Petitioner 4. In that case, the Court construed a portion of the same clause at issue here, but the decision had no bearing on the meaning of “any other law enforcement officer.” 465 U. S., at 853-862 (holding that “detention” encompasses claims resulting from negligent handling or storage). Indeed, the Court expressly declined to reach the issue. Id., at 852, n. 6 (“We have no occasion in this ease to decide what kinds of ‘law-enforcement officer[s],’ other than customs officials, are covered by the exception” (alteration in original)). Petitioner’s reliance on the footnote as concluding that the phrase is ambiguous reads too much into the Court’s reservation of a question that was not then before it. Of course, other circumstances may counteract the effect of expansive modifiers. For example, we have construed an “any” phrase narrowly when it included a term of art that compelled that result. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U. S. 105, 115-116 (2001) (construing “any other class of workers engaged in . .. commerce,” 9 U. S. C. § 1, narrowly based on the Court’s previous interpretation of “in commerce” as a term of art with a narrower meaning). We also have construed such phrases narrowly when another term in the provision made sense only under a narrow reading, see United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 U. S. 350, 357-358 (1994) (limiting “any law-enforcement officer” to federal officers because the statute’s reference to “delay” made sense only with respect to federal officers), and when a broad reading would have implicated sovereignty concerns, see Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U. S. 533, 541-542 (2002) (applying the “clear statement rule” applicable to waivers of sovereign immunity to construe the phrase “all civil actions” to exclude a category of claims, “even though nothing in the statute expressly exclude[d]” them). None of the circumstances that motivated our decisions in these cases is present here. Justice Kennedy’s dissent (hereinafter the dissent) argues that, during border searches, customs and excise officers “routinely” enforce civil forfeiture laws unrelated to customs or excise. Post, at 239-240. But the examples the dissent provides do not support that assertion. The dissent maintains that a customs officer who seizes material defined as contraband under 49 U. S. C. § 80302 et seq. is one such example. Post, at 240. But a customs officer’s authority to effect a forfeiture of such contraband derives from a specific customs law. See 19 U. S. C. § 1595a(c)(l)(C). Similarly, the dissent suggests that a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent “assisting a customs official” in a border search who seizes drug-related contraband under 21 U. S. C. § 881 is acting in a “traditional revenue capacity.” Post, at 240. But that argument is based on the assumption that an officer who assists in conducting a border search acts in a customs capacity even if he is not a customs officer and is not enforcing a customs law. That assumption, far from self-evident, only underscores the difficulty that would attend any attempt to define the contours of the implied limitation on § 2680(c)’s reach proposed by petitioner and embraced by the dissent. “Acting in a customs or excise capacity” is not a self-defining concept, and not having included such a limitation in the statute’s language, Congress of course did not provide a definition. Finally, the dissent points out that a customs or excise officer might effect a forfeiture of currency or monetary instruments under 31 U. S. C. § 5317(c). Post, at 240. But § 5317(e) is hardly a civil forfeiture law unrelated to customs or excise. See § 5317(c)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. V) (authorizing forfeiture of property involved in a violation of, inter alia, § 5316 (2000 ed.), which sets forth reporting requirements for exporting and importing monetary instruments). As an example of “other law enforcement officer[s]” acting in an excise or customs capacity, petitioner cites Formula One Motors, Ltd. v. United States, 777 F. 2d 822, 823-824 (CA2 1985) (holding that the seizure of a vehicle still in transit from overseas by DEA agents who searched it for drugs was “sufficiently akin to the functions carried out by Customs officials to place the agents’ conduct within the scope of section 2680(c)”). But it is not clear that the agents in that case were acting in an excise or customs capacity rather than in their ordinary capacity as law enforcement agents. It seems to us that DEA agents searching a car for drugs are acting in their capacity as officers charged with enforcing the Nation’s drug laws, not the customs or excise laws. Similarly, the dissent notes that 14 U. S. C. § 89(a) authorizes Coast Guard officers to enforce customs laws. Post, at 233. But the very next subsection of §89 provides that Coast Guard officers effectively are customs officers when they enforce customs laws. See § 89(b)(1) (providing that Coast Guard officers “insofar as they are engaged, pursuant to the authority contained in this section, in enforcing any law of the United States shall... be deemed to be acting as agents of the particular executive department . . . charged with the administration of the particular law”). As a result, a Coast Guard officer enforcing a customs law is a customs officer, not some “other law enforcement officer.” Congress, we note, did provide an administrative remedy for lost property claimants like petitioner. Federal agencies have authority under 31 U. S. C. § 3723(a)(1) to settle certain “claim[s] for not more than $1,000 for damage to, or loss of, privately owned property that... is caused by the negligence of an officer or employee of the United States Government acting within the scope of employment.” The BOP has settled more than 1,100 such claims in the last three years. Brief for Respondents 41, n. 17. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. Petitioner, Mayor of the City of Aurora, brought this suit in the District Court against the City and certain of its officials for damages for deprivation of rights secured to him by the Constitution. He alleges unlawful action by the city and by individuals who are or who purport to be its officials (see 42 U. S. C. § 1983) and a conspiracy (see 42 U. S. C. § 1985). The District Court granted the motions to dismiss, 174 F. Supp. 794, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 275 F. 2d 377, both decisions being prior to our opinion in Monroe v. Pape, ante, p. 167. The dismissal as to the City of Aurora was correct, for we held in Monroe v. Pape, supra, that a municipality was not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Insofar as any right claimed stems from petitioner’s status as mayor under Illinois law it is precluded from assertion here by Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1. But as we read the complaint, the rights which petitioner claims he was deprived of are those that derive from the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the right of free speech and assembly. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is not explicit as respects the grounds for dismissing the complaint under 42 U. S. C. § 1985. See Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1; Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U. S. 651. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the judgment of the District Court on grounds other than the ones relied on by that court, seems to have decided the case on a construction of 42 U. S. C. § 1983 that apparently is incon-. sistent with the view we took in Monroe v. Pape, supra. . Accordingly we grant the petition for certiorari, affirm the judgment in favor of the City of Aurora, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals in favor of the individual respondents and remand the cause as respects them to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of this opinion. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. The public schools of Columbus, Ohio, are highly segregated by race..In 1976, over 32% of the 96,000 students in the system were black. About 70% of all students attended schools that were at least 80% black or 80% white. 429 F. Supp. 229, 240 (SD Ohio 1977). Half of the 172 schools were 90% black or 90% white. 583 F. 2d 787, 800 (CA6 1978). Fourteen named students in the Columbus school system brought this case on June 21, 1973, against the Columbus Board of Education, the State Board of Education, and the appropriate local and state officials. The second amended complaint, filed on October 22, 1974, charged that the Columbus defendants had pursued and were pursuing a course of conduct having the purpose and effect of causing and perpetuating segregation in the public schools, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. A declaratory judgment to this effect and appropriate injunctive relief were prayed. Trial of the case began more than a year later, consumed 36 trial days, produced a record containing over 600 exhibits and a transcript in excess of 6,600 pages, and was completed in June 1976. Final arguments were heard in September, and in March 1977 the District Court filed an opinion and order containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law. 429 F. Supp. 229. The trial court summarized its findings: “From the evidence adduced at trial, the Court has found earlier in this opinion that the Columbus Public Schools were openly and intentionally segregated on the basis of race when Brown [v. Board of Education, 347 IT. S. 483 (Brown /)] was decided in 1954. The Court has found that the Columbus Board of Education never actively set out to dismantle this dual system. The Court has found that until legal action was initiated by the Columbus Area Civil Rights Council, the Columbus Board did not assign teachers and administrators to Columbus schools at random, without regard for the racial composition of the student enrollment at those schools. The Columbus Board even in very recent times... has approved optional attendance zones, discontiguous attendance areas and boundary changes which have maintained and enhanced racial imbalance in the Columbus Public Schools. The Board, even in very recent times and after promising to do otherwise, has adjured [sic] workable suggestions for improving the racial balance of city schools. “Viewed in the context of segregative optional attendance zones, segregative faculty and administrative hiring and assignments, and the other such actions and decisions of the Columbus Board of Education in recent and remote history, it is fair and reasonable to draw an inference of segregative intent from the Board’s actions and omissions discussed in this opinion.” Id., at 260-261. The District Court’s ultimate conclusion was that at the time of trial the racial segregation in the Columbus school system “directly resulted from [the Board’s] intentional segre-gative acts and omissions,” id., at 269, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, judgment was entered against the local and state defendants enjoining them from continuing to discriminate on the basis of race in operating the Columbus public schools and ordering the submission of a systemwide desegregation plan. Following decision by this Court in Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U. S. 406 (Dayton I), in June 1977, and in response to a motion by the Columbus Board, the District Court rejected the argument that Dayton I required or permitted any modification of its findings or judgment. It reiterated its conclusion that the Board’s “ ‘liability in this case concerns the Columbus School District as a whole,’ ” App. to Pet. for Cert. 94, quoting 429 F. Supp., at 266, asserting that, although it had “no real interest in any remedy plan which is more sweeping than necessary to correct the constitutional wrongs plaintiffs have suffered,” neither would it accept any plan “which fails to take into account the systemwide nature of the liability of the defendants.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 95. The Board subsequently presented a plan that complied with the District Court’s guidelines and that was embodied in a judgment entered on October 7. The plan was stayed pending appeal to the Court of Appeals. Based on its own examination of the extensive record, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments entered against the local defendants. 583 F. 2d 787. The Court of Appeals could not find the District Court’s findings of fact clearly erroneous. Id., at 789. Indeed, the Court of Appeals examined in detail each set of findings by the District Court and found strong support for them in the record. Id., at 798, 804, 805, 814. The Court of Appeals also discussed in detail and found unexceptionable the District Court’s understanding and application of the Fourteenth Amendment and the cases construing it. Implementation of the desegregation plan was stayed pending our disposition of the case. 439 U. S. 1348 (1978) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). We granted the Board’s petition for certiorari, 439 U. S. 1066 (1979), and we now affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I The Board earnestly contends that when this case was brought and at the time of trial its operation of a segregated school system was not done with any general or specific racially discriminatory purpose, and that whatever unconstitutional conduct it may have been guilty of in the past such conduct at no time had systemwide segregative impact and surely no remaining systemwide impact at the time of trial. A systemwide remedy was therefore contrary to the teachings of the cases, such as Dayton I, that the scope of the constitutional violation measures the scope of the remedy. We have discovered no reason, however, to disturb the judgment of the Court of Appeals, based on the findings and conclusions of the District Court, that the Board’s conduct at the time of trial and before not only was animated by an unconstitutional, segregative purpose, but also had current, segre-gative impact that was sufficiently systemwide to warrant the remedy ordered by the District Court. These ultimate conclusions were rooted in a series of constitutional violations that the District Court found the Board to have committed and that together dictated its judgment and decree. In each instance, the Court of Appeals found the District Court’s conclusions to be factually and legally sound. A First, although at least since 1888 there had been no statutory requirement or authorization to operate segregated schools, the District Court found that in 1954, when Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (Brown I), was decided, the Columbus Board was not operating a racially neutral, unitary school system, but was conducting “an enclave of separate, black schools on the near east side of Columbus,” and that “[t]he then-existing racial separation was the direct result of cognitive acts or omissions of those school board members and administrators who had originally intentionally caused and later perpetuated the racial isolation... 429 F. Supp., at 236. Such separateness could not “be said to have been the result of racially neutral official acts.” Ibid. Based on its own examination of the record, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court in this respect, observing that, “[wjhile the Columbus school system's dual black-white character was not mandated by state law as of 1954, the record certainly shows intentional segregation by the Columbus Board. As of 1954 the Columbus School Board had ‘carried out a systematic program of segregation affecting a substantial portion of the students, schools, teachers and facilities within the school system.’ ” 583 F. 2d, at 798-799, quoting Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 U. S. 189, 201-202 (1973). The Board insists that, since segregated schooling was not commanded by state law and since not all schools were wholly black or wholly white in 1954, the District Court was not warranted in finding a dual system. But the District Court found that the “Columbus Public Schools were officially segregated by race in 1954,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 94 (emphasis added); and in any event, there is no reason to question the finding that as the “direct result of cognitive acts or omissions” the Board maintained “an enclave of separate, black schools on the near east side of Columbus.” 429 F. Supp., at 236. Proof of purposeful and effective maintenance of a body of separate black schools in a substantial part of the system itself is prima facie proof of a dual school system and supports a finding to this effect absent sufficient contrary proof by the Board, which was not forthcoming in this case. Keyes, supra, at 203. B Second, both courts below declared that since the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (1955) (Brown II), the Columbus Board has been under a continuous constitutional obligation to disestablish its dual school system and that it has failed to discharge this duty. App. to Pet. for Cert. 94; 583 F. 2d, at 799. Under the Fourteenth Amendment and the cases that have construed it, the Board’s duty to dismantle its dual system cannot be gainsaid. Where a racially discriminatory school system has been found to exist, Brown II imposes the duty on local school boards to “effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system.” 349 U. S., at 301. “Brown II was a call for the dismantling of well-entrenched dual systems,” and school boards operating such systems were “clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch.” Green v. County School Board, 391 U. S. 430, 437-438 (1968). Each instance of a failure or refusal to fulfill this affirmative duty continues the violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dayton I, 433 U. S., at 413-414; Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 407 U. S. 451, 460 (1972); United States v. Scotland Neck Board of Education, 407 U. S. 484 (1972) (creation of a new school district in a city that had operated a dual school system but was not yet the subject of court-ordered desegregation). The Green case itself was decided 13 years after Brown II. The core of the holding was that the school board involved had not done enough to eradicate the lingering consequences of the dual school system that it had been operating at the time Brown I was decided. Even though a freedom-of-choice plan had been adopted, the school system remained essentially a segregated system, with many all-black and many all-white schools. The board’s continuing obligation, which had not been satisfied, was “ 'to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work... now... until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed.’ ” Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1, 13 (1971), quoting Green,supra, at 439 (emphasis in original). As The Chief Justice’s opinion for a unanimous Court in Swann recognized, Brown and Green imposed an affirmative duty to desegregate. “If school authorities fail in their affirmative- obligations under these holdings, judicial authority may be invoked.... In default by the school authorities of their obligation to proffer acceptable remedies, a district court has broad power to fashion a remedy that will assure a unitary school system.” 402 U. S., at 15-16. In Swann, it should be recalled, an initial desegregation plan had been entered in 1965 and had been affirmed on appeal. But the case was reopened, and in 1969 the school board was required to come forth with a more effective plan. The judgment adopting the ultimate plan was affirmed here in 1971, 16 years after Brown II. In determining whether a dual school system has been disestablished, Swann also mandates that matters aside from student assignments must be considered: “[W]here it is possible to identify a ‘white school’ or a ‘Negro school’ simply by reference to the racial composition of teachers and staff, the quality of school buildings and equipment, or the organization of sports activities, a prima facie case of violation of substantive constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause is shown.” 402 U. S., at 18. Further, Swann stated that in devising remedies for legally imposed segregation the responsibility of the local authorities and district courts is to ensure that future school construction and abandonment are not used and do not serve to perpetuate or re-establish the dual school system. Id., at 20-21. As for student assignments, the Court said: “No per se rule can adequately embrace all the difficulties of reconciling the competing interests involved; but in a system with a history of segregation the need for remedial criteria of sufficient specificity to assure a school authority’s compliance with its constitutional duty warrants a presumption against schools that are substantially disproportionate in their racial composition. Where the school authority’s proposed plan for conversion from a dual to a unitary system contemplates the continued existence of some schools that are all or predominantly of one race, they have the burden of showing that such school assignments are genuinely nondiscriminatory.” Id., at 26. The Board’s continuing “affirmative duty to disestablish the dual school system” is therefore beyond question, McDaniel v. Barresi, 402 U. S. 39, 41 (1971), and it has pointed to nothing in the record persuading us that at the time of trial the dual school system and its effects had been disestablished. The Board does not appear to challenge the finding of the District Court that at the time of trial most blacks were still going to black schools and most whites to white schools. Whatever the Board’s current purpose with respect to racially separate education might be, it knowingly continued its failure to eliminate the consequences of its past intentionally segregative policies. The Board “never actively set out to dismantle this duál system.” 429 F. Supp., at 260. C Third, the District Court not only found that the Board had breached its constitutional duty by failing effectively to eliminate the continuing consequences of its intentional systemwide segregation in 1954, but also found that in the intervening years there had been a series of Board actions and practices that could not “reasonably be explained without reference to racial concerns,” id., at 241, and that “intentionally aggravated, rather than alleviated,” racial separation in the schools. App. to Pet. for Cert. 94. These matters included the general practice of assigning black teachers only to those schools with substantial black student populations, a practice that was terminated only in 1974 as the result of a conciliation agreement with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission; the intentionally segregative use of optional attendance zones, discon-tiguous attendance areas, and boundary changes; and the selection of sites for new school construction that had the foreseeable and anticipated effect of maintaining the racial separation of the schools. The court generally noted that “[s]ince the 1954 Brown decision, the Columbus defendants or their predecessors were adequately put on notice of the fact that action was required to correct and to prevent the increase in” segregation, yet failed to heed their duty to alleviate racial separation in the schools. 429 F. Supp., at 255. II Against this background, we cannot fault the conclusion of the District Court and the Court of Appeals that at the time of trial there was systemwide segregation in the Columbus schools that was the result of recent and remote intentionally segregative actions of the Columbus Board. While appearing not to challenge most of the subsidiary findings of historical fact, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, petitioners dispute many of the factual inferences drawn from these facts by the two courts below. On this record, however, there is no apparent reason to disturb the factual findings and conclusions entered by the District Court and strongly affirmed by the Court of Appeals after its own examination of the record. Nor do we discern that the judgments entered below rested on any misapprehension of the controlling law. It is urged that the courts below failed to heed the requirements of Keyes, Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976), and Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252 (1977), that a plaintiff seeking to make out an equal protection violation on the basis of racial discrimination must show purpose. Both courts, it is argued, considered the requirement satisfied if it were shown that disparate impact would be the natural and foreseeable consequence of the practices and policies of the Board, which, it is said, is nothing more than equating impact with intent, contrary to the controlling precedent. The District Court, however, was amply cognizant of the controlling cases. It is understood that to prevail the plaintiffs were required to “ 'prove not only that segregated schooling exists but also that it was brought about or maintained by intentional state action/ ” 429 F. Supp., at 251, quoting Keyes, 413 U. S., at 198 — that is, that the school officials had “intended to segregate.” 429 F. Supp., at 254. See also 583 F. 2d, at 801. The District Court also recognized that under those cases disparate impact and foreseeable consequences, without more, do not establish a constitutional violation. See, e. g., 429 F. Supp., at 251. Nevertheless, the District Court correctly noted that actions having foreseeable and anticipated disparate impact are relevant evidence to prove the ultimate fact, forbidden purpose. Those cases do not forbid “the foreseeable effects standard from being utilized as one of the several kinds of proofs from which an inference of segregative intent may be properly drawn.” Id., at 255. Adherence to a particular policy or practice, “with full knowledge of the predictable effects of such adherence upon racial imbalance in a school system is one factor among many others which may be considered by a court in determining whether an inference of segregative intent should be drawn.” Ibid. The District Court thus stayed well within the requirements of Washington v. Davis and Arlington Heights. See Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 279 n. 25 (1979). It is also urged that the District Court and the Court of Appeals failed to observe the requirements of our recent decision in Dayton I, which reiterated the accepted rule that the remedy imposed by a court of equity should be commensurate with the violation ascertained, and held that the remedy for the violations that had then been established in that case should be aimed at rectifying the “incremental segregative effect”, of the discriminatory acts identified. In Dayton I, only a few apparently isolated discriminatory practices had been found; yet a systemwide remedy had been imposed without proof of a systemwide impact. Here, however, the District Court repeatedly emphasized that it had found purposefully segregative practices with current, systemwide impact. 429 F. Supp., at 252, 259-260, 264, 266; App. to Pet. for Cert. 95; 583 F. 2d, at 799. And the Court of Appeals, responding to similar arguments, said: “School board policies of systemwide application necessarily have systemwide impact. 1) The pre-1954 policy of creating an enclave of five schools intentionally designed for black students and known as 'black’ schools, as found by the District Judge, clearly had a'substantial’— indeed, a systemwide — impact. 2) The post-1954 failure of the Columbus Board to desegregate the school system in spite of many requests and demands to do so, of course, had systemwide impact. 3) So, too, did the Columbus Board’s segregative school construction and siting policy as we have detailed it above. 4) So too did its student assignment policy which, as shown above, produced the large majority of racially identifiable schools as of the school year 1975-76. 5) The practice of assigning black teachers and administrators only or in large majority to black schools likewise represented a systemwide policy of segregation. This policy served until July 1974 to deprive black students of.opportunities for contact with and learning from white teachers, and conversely to deprive white students of similar opportunities to meet, know and learn from black teachers. It also served as discriminatory, systemwide racial identification of schools.” 583 F. 2d, at 814. Nor do we perceive any misuse of Keyes, where we held that purposeful discrimination in a substantial part of a school system furnishes a sufficient basis for an inferential finding of a systemwide discriminatory intent unless otherwise rebutted, and that given the purpose to operate a dual school system one could infer a connection between such a purpose and racial separation in other parts of the school system. There was no undue reliance here on the inferences permitted by Keyes, or upon those recognized by Swann. Furthermore, the Board was given ample opportunity to counter the evidence of segre-gative purpose and current, systemwide impact, and the findings of the courts below were against it in both respects. 429 F. Supp., at 260; App. to Pet. for Cert. 95, 102, 105. Because the District Court and the Court of Appeals committed no prejudicial errors of fact or law, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. So ordered. A similar group of plaintiffs was allowed to intervene, and the original plaintiffs were allowed to file an amended complaint that was certified as a class action. 429 F. Supp. 229, 233-234 (SD Ohio 1977); App. 50. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment against the state defendants and remanded for further proceedings regarding those parties. 583 F. 2d 787, 815-818 (CA6 1978). No issue with respect to the state defendants is before us now. Petitioners also argue that the District Court erred in requiring that every school in the system be brought roughly within proportionate racial balance. We see no misuse of mathematical ratios under our decision in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1, 22-25 (1971), especially in light of the Board’s failure to justify the continued existence of “some schools that are all or predominantly of one race....” Id., at 26; see App. to Pet. for Cert. 102-103. Petitioners do not otherwise question the remedy if a systemwide violation was properly found. In 1871, pursuant to the requirements of state law, Columbus maintained a complete separation of the races in the public schools. 429 F. Supp., at 234-235. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in 1888 that state law no longer required or permitted the segregation of schoolchildren. Board of Education v. State, 45 Ohio St. 555, 16 N. E. 373. Even prior to that, in 1881, the Columbus Board abolished its separate schools for black and white students, but by the end of the first decade of this century it had returned to a segregated school policy. Champion Avenue School was built in 1909 in a predominantly black area and was completely staffed with black teachers. Other black schools were established as the black population grew. The Board gerrymandered attendance zones so that white students who lived near these schools were assigned to or could attend white schools, which often were further from their homes. By 1943, a total of five schools had almost exclusively black student bodies, and each was assigned an all-black faculty, often through all-white to all-black faculty transfers that occurred each time the Board came to consider a particular school as a black school. 429 F. Supp., at 234-236. Both our dissenting Brethren and the separate concurrence of Mr. Justice Stewart put great weight on the absence of a statutory mandate or authorization to discriminate, but the Equal Protection Clause was aimed at all official actions, not just those of state legislatures. “[N]o agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government,... denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws... violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State’s power, his act is that of the State.” Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 347 (1880). Thus, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886), the discriminatory application of an ordinance fair on its face was found to be unconstitutional state action. Even actions of state agents that may be illegal under state law are attributable to the State. United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787 (1966); Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91 (1945). Our decision in Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 U. S. 189 (1973), plainly demonstrates in the educational context that there is no magical difference between segregated schools mandated by statute and those that result from local segregative acts and policies. The presence of a statute or ordinance commanding separation of the races would ease the plaintiff’s problems of proof, but here the District Court found that the local officials, by their conduct and policies, had maintained a dual school system in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals agreed, and we fail to see why there should be a lesser constitutional duty to eliminate that system than there would have been had the system been ordained by law. The dissenters in this ease claim a better grasp of the historical and ultimate facts than the two courts below had. But on the issue of whether there was a dual school system in Columbus, Ohio, in 1954, on the record before us we are much more impressed by the views of the judges who have lived with the case over the years. Also, our dissenting Brothers’ suggestion that this Court should play a special oversight role in reviewing the factual determinations of the lower courts in school desegregation cases, post, at 491-492 (RehNQUist, J., dissenting), asserts an omnipotence and omniscience that we do not have and should not claim. It is argued that Dayton I, 433 U. S. 406 (1977), implicitly overruled or limited those portions of Keyes and Swann approving, in certain circumstances, inferences of general, systemwide purpose and current, system-wide impact from evidence of discriminatory purpose that has resulted in substantial current segregation, and approving a systemwide remedy absent a showing by the defendant of what part of the current imbalance was not caused by the constitutional breach. Dayton I does not purport to disturb any aspect of Keyes and Swann; indeed, it cites both cases with approval. On the facts found by the District Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals at the time Dayton first came before us, there were only isolated instances of intentional segregation, which were insufficient to give rise to an inference of systemwide institutional purpose and which did not add up to a facially substantial systemwide impact. Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman (Dayton II), post, at 531, and n. 5. Despite petitioners’ avowedly strong preference for neighborhood schools, in times of residential racial transition the Board created optional attendance zones to allow white students to avoid predominantly black schools, which were often closer to the homes of the white pupils. For example, until well after the time the complaint was filed, petitioners allowed students in “a small, white enclave on Columbus’ predominantly black near-east side... to escape attendance at black” schools. 429 F. Supp., at 244. The court could perceive no racially neutral reasons for this optional zone. Id., at 245. “Quite frankly, the Near-Bexley Option appears to this Court to be a classic example of a segregative device designed to permit white students to escape attendance at predominantly black schools.” Ibid. This technique was applied when neighborhood schools would have tended to desegregate the involved schools. In the 1960’s, a group of white students were bused past their neighborhood school to a “whiter” school. The District Court could “discern no other explanation than a racial one for the existence of the Moler discontiguous attendance area for the period 1963 through 1969.” Id., at 247. From 1957 until 1963, students living in a predominantly white area near Heimandale Elementary School attended a more remote, but identifiably white school. Id., at 247-248. Gerrymandering of boundary lines also continued after 1954. The District Court found, for instance, that for one area on the west side of the city containing three white schools and one black school the Board had altered the lines so that white residential areas were removed from the black school’s zone and black students were contained within that zone. Id., at 245-247. The Court found that the segregative choice of lines was not justified “as a matter of academic administration” and “had a substantial and continuing segregative impact upon these four west side schools.” Id., at 247. Another example involved the former Mifflin district that had been absorbed into the Columbus district. The Board staff presented two alternative means of drawing necessary attendance zones: one that was desegre-gative and one that was segregative. The Board chose the segregative option, and the District Court was unpersuaded that it had any legitimate educational reasons for doing so. Id., at 248-250. The District Court found that, of the 103 schools built by the Board between 1950 and 1975, 87 opened with racially identifiable student bodies and 71 remained that way at the time of trial. This result was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances in light of the sites selected, and the Board was often specifically warned that it was, without apparent justification, choosing sites that would maintain or further segregation. Id., at 241-243. As the Court of Appeals noted: “[T]his record actually requires no reliance upon inference, since, as indicated above, it contains repeated instances where the Columbus Board was warned of the segregative effect of proposed site choices, and was urged to consider alternatives which could have had an integrative effect. In these instances the Columbus Board chose the segregative sites. In this situation the District Judge was justified in relying in part on the history of the Columbus Board’s site choices and construction program in finding deliberate and unconstitutional systemwide segregation.” 583 F. 2d, at 804. Local community and civil rights groups, the “Ohio State University Advisory Commission on Problems Facing the Columbus Public Schools, and officials of the Ohio State Board of Education all called attention to the problem [of segregation] and made certain curative recommendations.” 429 F. Supp., at 255. This was particularly important because the Columbus system grew rapidly in terms of geography and number of students, creating many crossroads where the Board could either turn toward segregation or away from it. See id., at 243. Specifically, for example, the University Commission in 1968 made certain recommendations that it thought not only would assist desegregation of the schools but also would encourage integrated residential patterns. Id., at 256. The Board itself came to similar conclusions about what could be done, but its response was “minimal.” Ibid. See also id., at 264. Additionally, the Board refused to create a site-selection advisory group to assist in avoiding sites with a segregative effect, refused to ask state education officials to present plans for desegregating the Columbus public schools, and refused to apply for federal desegregation-assistance funds. Id., at 257; see id., at 239. The District Court drew “the inference of segregative intent from the Columbus defendants’ failures, after notice, to consider predictable racial consequences of their acts and omissions when alternatives were available which would have eliminated or lessened racial imbalance.” Id., at 240. Petitioners have indicated that a few of the recent violations specifically discussed by the District Court involved so few students and lasted for such a short time that they are unlikely to have any current impact. But that contention says little or nothing about the incremental impact of systemwide practices extending over many years. Petitioners also argue that because many of the involved schools were in areas that had become predominantly black residential areas by the time of trial, the racial separation in the schools would have occurred even without the unlawful conduct of petitioners. But, as the District Court found, petitioners’ evidence in this respect was insufiicient to counter respondents’ proof. See Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 271 n. 21 (1977); Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Education v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 287 (1977). And the phenomenon described by petitioners seems only to confirm, not disprove, the evidence accepted by the District Court that school segregation is a contributing cause of housing segregation. 429 F. Supp., at 259; see Keyes, 413 U. S., at 202-203; Swann, 402 U. S., at 20-21. Although the District Court in this case discussed in its major opinion a number of specific instances of purposeful segregation, it made it quite clear that its broad findings were not limited to those instances: “Viewing the Court’s March 8 findings in their totality, this case does not rest on three specific violations, or eleven, or any other specific number. It concerns a school board which since 1954 has by its official acts intentionally aggravated, rather than alleviated, the racial imbalance of the public schools it administers. These were not the facts of the Dayton case.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 94. Mr. Justice RehNQUist’s dissent erroneously states that we have “reliev[ed] school desegregation plaintiffs from any showing of a causal nexus between intentional segregative actions and the conditions they seek to remedy.” Post, at 501. As we have expressly noted, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found that the Board’s purposefully discriminatory conduct and policies had current, systemwide impact — an essential predicate, as both courts recognized, for a systemwide remedy. Those courts reveal a much more knowledgeable and reliable view of the facts and of the record than do our dissenting Brethren. “For example, there is little dispute that Champion, Felton, Mt. Vernon, Pilgrim and Garfield were de jure segregated by direct acts of the Columbus defendants’ predecessors. They were almost completely segregated in 1954, 1964, 1974 and today. Nothing has occurred to substantially alleviate that continuity of discrimination of thousands of black students over the intervening decades.” 429 F. Supp., at 260 (footnote omitted). “The finding of liability in this case concerns the Columbus school district as a whole. Actions and omissions by public officials which tend to make black schools blacker necessarily have the reciprocal effect of making white schools whiter. '[I]t is obvious that a practice of concentrating Negroes in certain schools by structuring attendance zones or designating “feeder” schools on the basis of race has the reciprocal effect of keeping other nearby schools predominantly white.’ Keyes\_, swpra, at 201]. The evidence in this ease and the factual determinations made earlier in this opinion support the finding that those elementary, junior, and senior high schools in the Columbus school district which presently have a predominantly black student enrollment have been substantially and directly affected by the intentional acts and omissions of the defendant local and Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court of Claims rendered a judgment for the respondent and against the Government for an asserted breach of a construction contract. 105 Ct. Cl. 161, 63 F. Supp. 209. We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari which alleged that the Court of Claims’ decision was in direct conflict with Crook Co. v. United States, 270 U. S. 4, and United States v. Rice, 317 U. S. 61. We hold that the Government’s contention is correct. The respondent, an electrical contractor, agreed for a fixed fee to supply the materials for and install a field lighting system at the National Airport, Gravelly Point, Virginia, then under construction. The agreement was embodied in a standard form Government contract. Respondent promised to complete the job within 120 days after notice to proceed. In fact the job was not finished until 277 days after notice was given. The delay came about in this way. The site of the airport was being built up from under water by a fast but then unique method of hydraulic dredging. As portions of the earth base for the runways and taxiways settled, they were to be paved and the shoulders “rough-graded.” As segments of this work were finished, respondent was to move in, wire them, and install the lighting fixtures. The dredging took longer than Government engineers had anticipated, because some of the dredged soil, proving to be too unstable for runways and taxiways, had to be replaced. This in turn delayed completion of the runway sections; and, until each was finished, the lighting equipment for each segment could not be installed. The 157 days delay resulted from the consequently long and irregular intervals between the times when these segments were made available to respondent to do its job. But for these delays, respondent apparently could have finished its work in 120 days. The Court of Claims considered that the Government breached its contract by failing to make the runways available in time for respondent to do its work within 120 days. The judgment against the Government was for certain overhead and administrative expenses which respondent incurred during the consequent period of delay. In no single word, clause, or sentence in the contract does the Government expressly covenant to make the runways available to respondent at any particular time. Cf. United States v. Blair, 321 U. S. 730, 733-734. It is suggested that the obligation of respondent to complete the job in 120 days can be inverted into a promise by the Government not to cause performance to be delayed beyond that time by its negligence. But even if this provision standing alone could be stretched to mean that the Government obligated itself to exercise the highest degree of diligence and the utmost good faith in efforts to make the runways promptly available, the facts of this case would show no breach of such an undertaking. For the Court of Claims found that the Government’s representatives did this work “with great, if not unusual, diligence,” and that “no fault is or can be attributed to them.” Consequently, the Government cannot be held liable unless the contract can be interpreted to imply an unqualified warranty to make the runways promptly available. We can find no such warranty if we are to be consistent with our Crook and Rice decisions, supra. The pertinent provisions in the instant contract are, in every respect here material, substantially the same as those which were held in the former cases to impose no obligation on the Government to pay damages for delay. Here, as in the former cases, there are several contract provisions which showed that the parties not only anticipated that the Government might not finish its work as originally planned, but also provided in advance to protect the contractor from the consequences of such governmental delay, should it occur. The contract reserved a governmental right to make changes in the work which might cause interruption and delay, required respondent to coordinate his work with the other work being done on the site, and clearly contemplated that he would take up his work on the runway sections as they were intermittently completed and paved. Article 9 of the contract, entitled “Delays — Damages,” set out a procedure to govern both parties in case of respondent’s delay in completion, whether such delay was caused by respondent, the Government, or other causes. If delay were caused by respondent, the Government could terminate the contract, take over the work, and hold respondent and its sureties liable. Or, in the alternative, the Government could collect liquidated damages. If, on the other hand, delay were due to “acts of the Government” or other specified events, including “unforeseeable causes,” procedure was outlined for extending the time in which respondent was required to complete its contract, and relieving him from the penalties of contract termination or liquidated damages. In the Crook and Rice cases we held that the Government could not be held liable for delay in making its work available to contractors unless the terms of the contract imposed such liability. Those contracts, practically identical with the one here, were held to impose none. See also United States v. Blair, supra. The distinction which the Court of Claims found between this and the prior cases is not in point. It seems to be this: In the Crook and Rice cases the Government had a prime and a subcontractor: the Government reserved a right to make changes by which the prime contractor must thereafter be governed; the Government exercised this right; these changes made it impossible for the prime contractor and ultimately the subcontractor to do their work in time; since the Government had reserved the right against the prime contractor to make these changes, and the subcontractor knew this, the Government was not contractually responsible for the delay. Therefore it is suggested that the subcontractor in the Rice and Crook cases could know in advance that the performance time was “provisional,” whereas here the contractor had reason to believe that it was certain. But in this case there is ample indication, both in the extrinsic facts and in the contract terms, that changes and delays were anticipated and remedies therefor provided. The contractor here only lacked the one additional indication that changes were anticipated which he could have read from the prime contract had there been a prime contract and if a prime contract had been available for him to read. If this be a distinction, it is a distinction with no significant difference. This contract, like the others, shows that changes and delays were anticipated and provided for. The question on which all these cases turn is: Did the Government obligate itself to pay damages to a contractor solely because of delay in making the work available? We hold again that it did not for the reasons elaborated in the Crook and Rice decisions. Reversed. The damages awarded were for the wages respondent paid supervisory employees who stood by during the delay intervals, and for certain expenses of respondent incurred on account of these employees for unemployment and similar taxes. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, deprives a state court of the power to entertain, an action by an employer to enforce state trespass laws against picketing which is arguably — but not definitely — prohibited or protected by federal law. I On October 24, 1973, two business representatives of respondent Union visited the department store operated by petitioner (Sears) in Chula Vista, Cal., and determined that certain carpentry work was being performed by men who had not been dispatched from the Union hiring hall. Later that day, the Union agents met with the store manager and requested that Sears either arrange to have the work performed by a contractor who employed dispatched carpenters or agree in writing to abide by the terms of the Union's master labor agreement with respect to the dispatch and use of carpenters. The Sears manager stated that he would consider the request, but he never accepted or rejected it. Two days later the Union established picket lines on Sears' property. The store is located in the center of a large rectangular lot. The building is surrounded by walkways and a large parking area. A concrete wall at one end separates the lot from residential property; the other three sides adjoin public sidewalks which are adjacent to the public streets. The pickets patrolled either on the privately owned walkways next to the building or in the parking area a few feet away. They carried signs indicating that they were sanctioned by the “Carpenters Trade Union." The picketing was peaceful and orderly. Sears' security manager demanded that the Union remove the pickets from Sears’ property. The Union refused, stating that the pickets would not leave unless forced to do so by legal action. On October 29, Sears filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court of California seeking an injunction against the continuing trespass; the court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Union from picketing on Sears’ property. The Union promptly removed the pickets to the public sidewalks. On November 21, 1973, after hearing argument on the question whether the Union’s picketing on Sears’ property was protected by state or federal law, the court entered a preliminary injunction. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. While acknowledging the pre-emption guidelines set forth in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, the court held that the Union’s continuing trespass fell within the longstanding exception for conduct which touched interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that pre-emption could not be inferred in the absence of clear evidence of congressional intent. The Supreme Court of California reversed. 17 Cal. 3d 893, 553 P. 2d 603. It concluded that the picketing was arguably protected by § 7 of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 157, because it was intended to secure work for Union members and to publicize Sears’ undercutting of the prevailing area standards for the. employment of carpenters. The court reasoned that the trespassory character of the picketing did not disqualify it from arguable protection, but was merely a factor which the National Labor Relations Board would consider in determining whether or not it was in fact protected. The court also considered it “arguable” that the Union had engaged in recog-nitional picketing subject to §8 (b)(7)(C) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b)(7)(C), which could not continue for more than 30 days without petitioning for a representation election. Because the picketing was both arguably protected by § 7 and arguably prohibited by § 8, the court held that state jurisdiction was pre-empted under the Garmon guidelines. Since the Wagner Act was passed in 1935, this Court has not decided whether, or under what circumstances, a state court has power to enforce local trespass laws against a union’s peaceful picketing. The obvious importance of this problem led us to grant certiorari in this case. 430 U. S. 905. II We start from the premise that the Union’s picketing on Sears’ property after the request to leave was a continuing trespass in violation of state law. We note, however, that the scope of the controversy in the state court was limited. Sears asserted no claim that the picketing itself violated any state or federal law. It sought simply to remove the pickets from its property to the public walkways, and the injunction issued by the state court was strictly confined to the relief sought. Thus, as a matter of state law, the location of the picketing was illegal but the picketing itself was unobjectionable. As a matter of federal law, the legality of the picketing was unclear. Two separate theories would support an argument by Sears that the picketing was prohibited by § 8 of the NURA, and a third theory would support an argument by the Union that the picketing was protected by § 7. Under each of these theories the Union’s purpose would be of critical importance. If an object of the picketing was to force Sears into assigning the carpentry work aw’ay from its employees to Union members dispatched from the hiring hall, the picketing may have been prohibited by § 8 (b)(4)(D). Alternatively, if an object of the picketing was to coerce Sears into signing a prehire or members-only type agreement with the Union, the picketing was at least arguably subject to the prohibition on recognitional picketing contained in §8 (b)(7)(C). Hence, if Sears had filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Union, the Board’s concern would have been limited to the question whether the Union’s picketing had an objective proscribed by the Act; the location of the picketing would have been irrelevant. On the other hand, the Union contends that the sole objective of its action was to secure compliance by Sears with area standards, and therefore the picketing was protected by § 7. Longshoremen v. Ariadne Shipping Co., 397 U. S. 195. Thus, if the Union had filed an unfair labor practice charge under § 8 (a) (1) when Sears made a demand that the pickets leave its property, it is at least arguable that the Board would have found Sears guilty of an unfair labor practice. Our second premise, therefore, is that the picketing was both arguably prohibited and arguably protected by federal law. The case is not, however, one in which “it is clear or may fairly be assumed” that the subject matter which the state court sought to regulate — that is, the location of the picketing — is either prohibited or protected by the Federal Act. Ill In San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, the Court made two statements which have come to be accepted as the general guidelines for deciphering the unexpressed intent of Congress regarding the permissible scope of state regulation of activity touching upon labor-management relations. The first related to activity which is clearly protected or prohibited by the federal statute. The second articulated a more sweeping prophylactic rule: “When an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the Act, the States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted.” Id., at 245. While the Garmon formulation accurately reflects the basic federal concern with potential state interference with national labor policy, the history of the labor pre-emption doctrine in this Court does not support an approach which sweeps away state-court jurisdiction over conduct traditionally subject to state regulation without careful consideration of the relative impact of such a jurisdictional bar on the various interests affected. As the Court noted last Term: “Our cases indicate... that inflexible application of the doctrine is to be avoided, especially where the State has a substantial interest in regulation of the conduct at issue and the State’s interest is one that does not threaten undue interference with the federal regulatory scheme.” Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U. S. 290, 302. Thus the Court has refused to apply the Garmon guidelines in a literal, mechanical fashion. This refusal demonstrates that “the decision to pre-empt... state court jurisdiction over a given class of cases must depend upon the nature of the particular interests being asserted and the effect upon the administration of national labor policies” of permitting the state court to proceed. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 180. With this limitation in mind, we turn to the question whether pre-emption is justified in a case of this kind under either the arguably protected or the arguably prohibited branch of the Garmon doctrine. While the considerations underlying the two categories overlap, they differ in significant respects and therefore it is useful to review them separately. We therefore first consider whether the arguable illegality of the picketing as a matter of federal law should oust the state court of jurisdiction to enjoin its trespassory aspects. Thereafter, we consider whether the arguably protected character of the picketing should have that effect. IV The enactment of the NLRA in 1935 marked a fundamental change in the Nation’s labor policies. Congress expressly recognized that collective organization of segments of the labor force into bargaining units capable of exercising economic power comparable to that possessed by employers may produce benefits for the entire economy in the form of higher wages, job security, and improved working conditions. Congress decided that in the long run those benefits would outweigh the occasional costs of industrial strife associated with the organization of unions and the negotiation and enforcement of collective-bargaining agreements. The earlier notion that union activity was a species of “conspiracy” and that strikes and picketing were examples of unreasonable restraints of trade was replaced by an unequivocal national declaration of policy establishing the legitimacy of labor unionization and encouraging the practice of collective bargaining. The new federal statute protected the collective-bargaining activities of employees and their representatives and created a regulatory scheme to be administered by an independent agency which would develop experience and expertise in the labor relations area. The Court promptly decided that the federal agency’s power to implement the policies of the new legislation was exclusive and the States were without power to enforce overlapping rules. Accordingly, attempts to apply provisions of the “Little Wagner Acts” enacted by New York and Wisconsin were held to be pre-empted by the potential conflict with the federal regulatory scheme. Consistently with these holdings, the Court also decided that a State’s employment relations board had no power to grant relief for violation of the federal statute. The interest in uniform development of the new national labor policy required that matters which fell squarely within the regulatory jurisdiction of the federal Board be evaluated in the first instance by that agency. The leading case holding that when an employer grievance against a union may be presented to the National Labor Relations Board it is not subject to litigation in a state tribunal is Garner v. Teamsters, 346 U. S. 485. Garner involved peaceful organizational picketing which arguably violated § 8 (b) (2) of the federal Act. A Pennsylvania equity court held that the picketing violated the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act and therefore should be enjoined. The State Supreme Court reversed because the union conduct fell within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board to prevent unfair labor practices. This Court affirmed because Congress had “taken in hand this particular type of controversy... [i]n language almost identical to parts of the Pennsylvania statute,” 346 U. S., at 488. Accordingly, the State, through its courts, was without power to “adjudge the same controversy and extend its own form of relief.” Id., at 489. This conclusion did not depend on any surmise as to “how the National Labor Relations Board might have decided this controversy had petitioners presented it to that body.” Ibid. The precise conduct in controversy was arguably prohibited by federal law and therefore state jurisdiction was pre-empted. The reason for pre-emption was clearly articulated: “Congress evidently considered that centralized administration of specially designed procedures was necessary to obtain uniform application of its substantive rules and to avoid these diversities and conflicts likely to result from a variety of local procedures and attitudes toward labor controversies. Indeed, Pennsylvania passed a statute the same year as its labor relations Act reciting abuses of the injunction in labor litigations attributable more to procedure and usage than to substantive rules. A multiplicity of tribunals and a diversity of procedures are quite as apt to produce incompatible or conflicting adjudications as are different rules of substantive law. The same reasoning which prohibits federal courts from intervening in such cases, except by way of review or on application of the federal Board, precludes state courts from doing so. Cf. Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41; Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U. S. 261.” Id., at 490-491 (footnote omitted). “The conflict lies in remedies.... [W]hen two separate remedies are brought to bear on the same activity, a conflict is imminent.” Id., at 498-499. This reasoning has its greatest force when applied to state laws regulating the relations between employees, their union, and their employer. It may also apply' to certain laws of general applicability which are occasionally invoked in connection with a labor dispute. Thus, a State’s antitrust law may not be invoked to enjoin collective activity which is also arguably prohibited by the federal Act. Capital Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 347 U. S. 501; Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468. In each case, the pertinent inquiry is whether the two potentially conflicting statutes were “brought to bear on precisely the same conduct.” Id., at 479. On the other hand, the Court has allowed a State to enforce certain laws of general applicability even though aspects of the challenged conduct were arguably prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA. Thus, for example, the Court has upheld state-court jurisdiction over conduct that touches “interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, we could not infer that Congress had deprived the States of the power to act.” San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S., at 244. See Construction Workers v. Laburnum Constr. Corp., 347 U. S. 656 (threats of violence); Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc., 355 U. S. 131 (violence); Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U. S. 634 (violence); Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U. S. 53 (libel); Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U. S. 290 (intentional infliction of mental distress). In Farmer, the Court held that a union member, who alleged that his union had engaged in a campaign of personal abuse and harassment against him, could maintain an action for damages against the union and its officers for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. One aspect of the alleged campaign was discrimination by the union in hiring hall referrals. Although such discrimination was arguably prohibited by § § 8 (b)(1)(A) and 8 (b)(2) of the NLRA and therefore an unfair labor practice charge could have been filed with the Board, the Court permitted the state action to proceed. The Court identified those factors which warranted a departure from the general pre-emption guidelines in the “local interest” cases. Two are relevant to the arguably prohibited branch of the Garmon doctrine. First, there existed a significant state interest in protecting the citizen from the challenged conduct. Second, although the challenged conduct occurred in the course of a labor dispute and an unfair labor practice charge could have been filed, the exercise of state jurisdiction over the tort claim entailed little risk of interference with the regulatory jurisdiction of the Labor Board. Although the arguable federal violation and the state tort arose in the same factual setting, the respective controversies presented to the state and federal forums would not have been the same. The critical inquiry, therefore, is not whether the State is enforcing a law relating specifically to labor relations or one of general application but whether the controversy presented to the state court is identical to (as in Garner) or different from (as in Farmer) that which could have been, but was not, presented to the Labor Board. For it is only in the former situation that a state court’s exercise of jurisdiction necessarily involves a risk of interference with the unfair labor practice jurisdiction of the Board which the arguably prohibited branch of the Garmon doctrine was designed to avoid. In the present case, the controversy which Sears might have presented to the Labor Board is not the same as the controversy presented to the state court. If Sears had filed a charge,, the federal issue would have been whether the picketing had a recognitional or work-reassignment objective; decision of that issue would have entailed relatively complex factual and legal determinations completely unrelated to the simple question whether a trespass had occurred. Conversely, in the state action, Sears only challenged the location of the picketing; whether the picketing had an objective proscribed by federal law was irrelevant to the state claim. Accordingly, permitting the state court to adjudicate Sears’ trespass claim would create no realistic risk of interference with the Labor Board’s primary jurisdiction to enforce the statutory prohibition against unfair labor practices. The reasons why pre-emption of state jurisdiction is normally appropriate when union activity is arguably prohibited by federal law plainly do not apply to this situation; they therefore are insufficient to preclude a State from exercising jurisdiction limited to the trespassory aspects of that activity. V The question whether the arguably protected character of the Union’s trespassory picketing provides a sufficient justification for pre-emption of the state court’s jurisdiction over Sears’ trespass claim involves somewhat different considerations. Apart from notions of “primary jurisdiction,” there would be no objection to state courts’ and the NLRB’s exercising concurrent jurisdiction over conduct prohibited by the federal Act. But there is a constitutional objection to state-court interference with conduct actually protected by the Act. Considerations of federal supremacy, therefore, are implicated to a greater extent when labor-related activity is protected than when it is prohibited. Nevertheless, several considerations persuade us that the mere fact that the Union’s trespass was arguably protected is insufficient to deprive the state court of jurisdiction in this case. The first is the relative unimportance in this context of the “primary jurisdiction” rationale articulated in Garmon. In theory, of course, that rationale supports pre-emption regardless of which section of the NLRA is critical to resolving a controversy which may be subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the NLRB.. Indeed, at first blush, the primary-jurisdiction rationale provides stronger support for pre-emption in this case when the analysis is focused upon the arguably protected, rather than the arguably prohibited, character of the Union’s conduct. For to the extent that the Union’s picketing was arguably protected, there existed a potential overlap between the controversy presented to the state court and that which the Union might have brought before the NLRB. Prior to granting any relief from the Union's continuing trespass, the state court was obligated to decide that the trespass was not actually protected by federal law, a determination which might entail an accommodation of Sears’ property rights and the Union’s § 7 rights. In an unfair labor practice proceeding initiated by the Union, the Board might have been required to make the same accommodation. Although it was theoretically possible for the accommodation issue to be decided either by the state court or by the Labor Board, there was in fact no risk of overlapping jurisdiction in this case. The primary-jurisdiction rationale justifies pre-emption only in situations in which an aggrieved party has a reasonable opportunity either to invoke the Board’s jurisdiction himself or else to induce his adversary to do so. In this case, Sears could not directly obtain a Board ruling on the question whether the Union’s trespass was federally protected. Such a Board determination could have been obtained only if the Union had filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that Sears had interfered with the Union’s § 7 right to engage in peaceful picketing on Sears’ property. By demanding that the Union remove its pickets from the store’s property, Sears in fact pursued a course of action which gave the Union the opportunity to file such a charge. But the Union’s response to Sears’ demand foreclosed the possibility of having the accommodation of § 7 and property rights made by the Labor Board; instead of filing a charge with the Board, the Union advised Sears that the pickets would only depart under compulsion of legal process. In the face of the Union’s intransigence, Sears had only three options: permit the pickets to remain on its property; forcefully evict the pickets; or seek the protection of the State’s trespass laws. Since the Union’s conduct violated state law, Sears legitimately rejected the first option. Since the second option involved a risk of violence, Sears surely had the right — perhaps even the duty — to reject it. Only by proceeding in state court, therefore, could Sears obtain an orderly resolution of the question whether the Union had a federal right to remain on its property. The primary-jurisdiction rationale unquestionably requires that when the same controversy may be presented to the state court or the NLRB, it must be presented to the Board. But that rationale does not extend to cases in which an employer has no acceptable method of invoking, or inducing the Union to invoke, the jurisdiction of the Board. We are therefore persuaded that the primary-jurisdiction rationale does not provide a sufficient justification for pre-empting state jurisdiction over arguably protected conduct when the party who could have presented the protection issue to the Board has not done so and the other party to the dispute has no acceptable means of doing so. This conclusion does not, however, necessarily foreclose the possibility that pre-emption may be appropriate. The danger of state interference with federally protected conduct is the principal concern of the second branch of the Garmon doctrine. To allow the exercise of state jurisdiction in certain contexts might create a significant risk of misinterpretation of federal law and the consequent prohibition of protected conduct. In those circumstances, it might be reasonable to infer that Congress preferred the costs inherent in a jurisdictional hiatus to the frustration of national labor policy which might accompany the exercise of state jurisdiction. Thus, the acceptability of “arguable protection” as a justification for pre-emption in a given class of cases is, at least in part, a function of the strength of the argument that § 7 does in fact protect the disputed conduct. The Court has held that state jurisdiction to enforce its laws prohibiting violence, defamation, the intentional infliction of emotional distress, or obstruction of access to property is not pre-empted by the NLRA. But none of those violations of state law involves protected conduct. In contrast, some violations of state trespass laws may be actually protected by § 7 of the federal Act. In NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U. S. 105, for example, the Court recognized that in certain circumstances non-employee union organizers may have a limited right of access to an employer’s premises for the purpose of engaging in organization solicitation. And the Court has indicated that Babcock extends to § 7 rights other than organizational activity, though the “locus” of the “accommodation of § 7 rights and private property rights... may fall at differing points along the spectrum depending on the nature and strength of the respective § 7 rights and private property rights asserted in any given context.” Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U. S. 507, 522. For purpose of analysis we must assume that the Union could have proved that its picketing was, at least in the absence of a trespass, protected by § 7. The remaining question is whether under Babcock the trespassory nature of the picketing caused it to forfeit its protected status. Since it cannot be said with certainty that, if the Union had filed an unfair labor practice charge against Sears, the Board would have fixed the locus of the accommodation at the unprotected end of the spectrum, it is indeed “arguable” that the Union's peaceful picketing, though trespassory, was protected. Nevertheless, permitting state courts to evaluate the merits of an argument that certain trespassory activity is protected does not create an unacceptable risk of interference with conduct which the Board, and a court reviewing the Board's decision, would find protected. For while there are unquestionably examples of trespassory union activity in which the question whether it is protected is fairly debatable, experience under the Act teaches that such situations are rare and that a trespass is far more likely to be unprotected than protected. Experience with trespassory organizational solicitation by nonemployees is instructive in this regard. While Babcock indicates that an employer may not always bar nonemployee union organizers from his property, his right to do so remains the general rule. To gain access, the union has the burden of showing that no other reasonable means of communicating its organizational message to the employees exists or that the employer’s access rules discriminate against union solicitation. That the burden imposed on the union is a heavy one is evidenced by the fact that the balance struck by the Board and the courts under the Babcock accommodation principle has rarely been in favor of trespassory organizational activity. Even on the assumption that picketing to enforce area standards is entitled to the same deference in the Babcock accommodation analysis as organizational solicitation, it would be unprotected in most instances. While there does exist some risk that state courts will on occasion enjoin a trespass that the Board would have protected, the significance of this risk is minimized by the fact that in the cases in which the argument in favor of protection is the strongest, the union is likely to invoke the Board's jurisdiction and thereby avoid the state forum. Whatever risk of an erroneous state-court adjudication does exist is outweighed by the anomalous consequence of a rule which would deny the employer access to any forum in which to litigate either the trespass issue or the protection issue in those cases in which the disputed conduct is least likely to be protected by § 7. If there is a strong argument that the trespass is protected in a particular case, a union can be expected to respond to an employer demand to depart by filing an unfair labor practice charge; the protection question would then be decided by the agency experienced in accommodating the § 7 rights of unions and the property rights of employers in the context of a labor dispute. But if the argument for protection is so weak that it has virtually no chance of prevailing, a trespassing union would be well advised to avoid the jurisdiction of the Board and to argue that the protected character of its conduct deprives the state court of jurisdiction. As long as the union has a fair opportunity to present the protection issue to the Labor Board, it retains meaningful protection against the risk of error in a state tribunal. In this case the Union failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labor Board, and Sears had no right to invoke that jurisdiction and could not even precipitate its exercise without resort to self-help. Because the assertion of state jurisdiction in a case of this kind does not create a significant risk of prohibition of protected conduct, we are unwilling to presume that Congress intended the arguably protected character of the Union’s conduct to deprive the California courts of jurisdiction to entertain Sears’ trespass action. The judgment of the Supreme Court of California is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§ 151-169 (1970 ed. and Supp. V). Hereinafter, the National Labor Relations Act will be referred to as the Act or the NLRA. Although Sears claimed that some deliverymen and repairmen refused to cross the picket lines on the public sidewalks, the Union ultimately concluded that the picketing was then too far removed from the store to be effective. The picketing was discontinued on November 12. The Superior Court apparently rested its decision on two grounds: (1) that the injunction was not prohibited by state law, and (2) that the picketing was not protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution. Transcript of Preliminary Injunction Hearing, App. 32. Thus, the precise issue presently before the Court was not decided until the case reached the Court of Appeal. The court was referring to this statement in the Garmon opinion: “When an activity is arguably subject to § 7, or § 8 of the Act, the States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted.” 359 U. S., at 245. The court also reaffirmed the conclusion of the Superior Court that the injunction was not prohibited by either state law or the Federal Constitution. In concluding that the state courts were “not preempted from exercising their general jurisdiction in matters of trespass related to labor disputes,” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-10, the Court of Appeal noted that the right to peaceful possession of property was regarded as basic in California and that the assumption of state jurisdiction would not directly infringe on the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, since no attempt had been made to invoke that jurisdiction. In a subsequent amended opinion, the Court of Appeal also emphasized the fact that the trial court injunction was narrowly confined to the “ ‘location' of the controversy as opposed to the purpose of the acts... and did not deny the Union effective communication with all persons going to Sears.” 125 Cal. Rptr. 245, 252 (1975). The issue was left open by the Court in Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 353 U. S. 20, 24-25. Cf. Taggart v. Weinacker’s, Inc., 283 Ala. 171, 214 So. 2d 913 (1968), cert. dismissed, 397 U. S. 223. The state courts have divided on the question of state-court jurisdiction over peaceful trespassory activity. For cases in addition to this one in which pre-emption was found, see, e. g., Reece Shirley & Ron’s, Inc. v. Retail Store Employees, 222 Kan. 373, 565 P. 2d 585 (1977); Freeman v. Retail Clerks, 58 Wash. 2d 426, 363 P. 2d 803 (1961). For cases reaching a contrary conclusion, see, e. g., May Department Stores Co. v. Teamsters, 64 Ill. 2d 153, 355 N. E. 2d 7 (1976); People v. Bush, 39 N. Y. 2d 529, 349 N. E. 2d 832 (1976); Hood v. Stafford, 213 Tenn. 684, 378 S. W. 2d 766 (1964). The State Superior Court and the Court of Appeal concluded that the Union’s activity violated state law. Because it concluded that the state courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain the state trespass claim, the California Supreme Court did not address the merits of the lower court rulings. The Union contends that those rulings were incorrect. Though we regard the state-law issue as foreclosed in this Court, there is of course nothing in our decision on the pre-emption issue which bars consideration of the Union’s arguments by the California Supreme Court on remand. Section 8 (b) (4) (D) provides in part that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents— “to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where... an object thereof is— “forcing or requiring any employer to' assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work.” 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b) (4) (D). There are two provisos to § 8 (b) (4) which exempt certain conduct from its prohibitions, but they appear to have no application in this case. Section 8 (b) (7) (C) provides in part that “[i]t shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents— “to picket... any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees... unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such employees: “where such picketing has been conducted without a petition... [for a representation election] being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty days from the commencement of such picketing....” 29 U. S. C. §158 (b)(7)(C). As to conduct clearly protected or prohibited by the federal statute, the Court stated: “When it is clear or may fairly be assumed that the activities which a State purports to regulate are protected by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, or constitute an unfair labor practice under § 8, due regard for the federal enactment requires that state jurisdiction must yield. To leave the States free to regulate conduct so plainly within the central aim of federal regulation involves too great a danger of conflict between power asserted by Congress and requirements imposed by state law.” 359 U. S., at 244. This sensitivity to the consequences of pre-emption is undoubtedly attributable, at least in part, to the way in which the labor pre-emption doctrine has evolved. The doctrine is to a great extent the result of this Court's ongoing effort to decipher the presumed intent of Congress in the face of that body’s steadfast silence. Mr. Justice Frankfurter aptly described the difficulty of this never-completed task: “The statutory implications concerning what has been taken from the States and what has been left to them are of a Delphic nature, to be translated into concreteness by the process of litigating elucidation.” Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U. S. 617, 619. And it is “because Congress has refrained from providing specific directions with respect to the scope of pre-empted state regulation, [that] the Court has been unwilling to 'declare pre-empted all local regulation that touches or concerns in any way the complex interrelationships between employees, employers, and unions Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U. S. 290, 295-296 (citation omitted). “We have refused to apply the pre-emption doctrine to activity that otherwise would fall within the scope of Garmon if that activity 'was a merely peripheral concern of the Labor Management Relations Act... [or] touched interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, we could not infer that Congress had deprived the States of the power to act.'... We also have refused to apply the pre-emption doctrine ‘where the particular rule of law sought to be invoked before another tribunal is so structured and administered that, in virtually all instances, it is safe to presume that judicial supervision will not disserve the interests promoted by the federal labor statutes.’ ” Id., at 296-297. The Court’s rejection of an inflexible pre-emption approach is reflected in other situations as well. Where only a minor aspect of the controversy presented to the state court is arguably within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Labor Board, the Court has indicated that the Garmon rule should not be read to require pre-emption of state jurisdiction. Hanna Mining Co. v. Marine Engineers, 382 U. S. 181. The Court has also indicated that if the state court can ascertain the actual legal significance of particular conduct under federal law by reference to “compelling precedent applied to essentially undisputed facts,” San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S., at 246, the court may properly do so and proceed to adjudicate the state cause of action. Permitting the state court to proceed under these circumstances deprives the litigant of the argument that the Board should reverse its position, or, perhaps, that precedent is not as compelling as one adversary contends. “In addition to the judicially developed exceptions referred to in [n. 13, supra], Congress itself has created exceptions to the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction in other classes Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

J

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346 (b), 2674, to recover money damages from the United States on account of the death of one Crowley, caused by negligent operation of traveling cranes by various government employees in a federal arsenal located in Massachusetts. The Act makes the United States liable for the negligence of its employees “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (b). That provision makes the law of Massachusetts govern the liability of the United States for this tort. The Massachusetts Death Act, in relevant part, provides that a person, whose agents or servants by negligence cause the death of another not in his employment or service, “shall be liable in damages in the sum of not less than two thousand nor more than twenty thousand dollars, to be assessed with reference to the degree of his culpability or of that of his agents or servants.” Mass. Ann. Laws, 1956, c. 229, § 2C. The assessment of damages with reference to the degree of culpability of the tort-feasor, rather than with reference to the amount of pecuniary loss suffered by the next of kin, makes those damages punitive in nature. That has been the holding of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. As stated in Macchiaroli v. Howell, 294 Mass. 144, 147, 200 N. E. 905, 906-907, “The chief characteristic of the statute is penal.” And see Arnold v. Jacobs, 316 Mass. 81, 84, 54 N. E. 2d 922, 923; Porter v. Sorell, 280 Mass. 457, 460-461, 182 N. E. 2d 837, 838-839. The Tort Claims Act, however, provides in 28 U. S. C. § 2674 that: “The United States shall be liable ... 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. “If, however, in any case wherein death was caused, the law of the place where the act or omission complained of occurred provides, or has been construed to provide, for damages only punitive in nature, the United States shall be liable for actual or compensatory damages, measured by the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death to the persons respectively, for whose benefit the action was brought, in lieu thereof.” (Italics added.) The District Court accordingly held that, since the United States was liable for “actual or compensatory” damages and not for “punitive” damages, the minimum and maximum limits contained in the Massachusetts Death Act were not applicable. It entered judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $60,000. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Massachusetts Death Act, though punitive, sets the maximum that may be recovered in compensatory damages under the Tort Claims Act. 227 F. 2d 385. The case is here on certiorari which we granted to review this important question of construction of the Tort Claims Act. 350 U. S. 980. The provision of the Act, making the United States liable “for actual or compensatory damages” where the law of the place provides “for damages only punitive in nature,” goes back to a 1947 amendment. Alabama and Massachusetts award only punitive damages for wrongful deaths. Controversies soon arose in those two States in suits under the Act, the Government maintaining that, since local law assessed only “punitive damages,” it was not liable. Several bills were introduced to remedy the situation. But the solution agreed upon was in a proposal tendered by the Comptroller General. In reference to the Alabama and Massachusetts rule, the spokesman of the Comptroller General stated: “Since in those two states compensatory damages are not allowed, all that is required is to amend the Federal Tort Claims Act to say that in such states compensatory damages shall be allowed. ... It is believed that that suggestion would eliminate the discrepancy and would make the settlement of claims in those two states to be exactly in accord with the general rules followed in the other 46 states . . . .” The Government seizes on this statement and like ones in the Committee Reports (see S. Rep. No. 763, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2; H. R. Rep. No. 748, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2) to argue that unless the ceiling provided in the Massachusetts law is respected, discrimination against the United States will be shown in Massachusetts, since over a dozen States have ceilings on compensatory-damages. It is also argued that the sole purpose of the amendment was to permit recovery for wrongful death in the two States where punitive damages could be awarded, not to alter the measure of recovery in those States. It is true that Congress was not legislating as to ceilings. Congress was, however, legislating as to the measure of the damages that could be recovered against the United States. As a result of the 1947 amendment, the United States became liable not for “punitive damages” but for “actual or compensatory” damages, where the law of the place provides for damages “only punitive in nature.” 28 U. S. C. § 2674. The measure of damages adopted was “the pecuniary injuries” resulting from the death. It is argued that Massachusetts does not provide damages “only punitive in nature” within the meaning of the Act; that even punitive damages serve a remedial end, as recognized by the Massachusetts court under that State’s Death Act. See Sullivan v. Hustis, 237 Mass. 441, 447, 130 N. E. 247, 249-250; Putnam v. Savage, 244 Mass. 83, 85, 138 N. E. 808, 809. It is said that Massachusetts law does not provide true punitive damages since the latter are never awarded for negligence alone and are generally imposed in addition to, not in lieu of, compensatory damages. These and related reasons are advanced for treating the Massachusetts measure of damages as the measure of “actual or compensatory” damages recoverable against the United States under the Act. We reject that reasoning. The standard of liability imposed by the Congress is at war with the one provided by Massachusetts. The standard of liability under the Massachusetts Death Act is punitive — i. e., “with reference to the degree” of culpability — not compensatory. The standard under the Tort Claims Act is “compensatory,” i. e., “measured by the pecuniary injuries” resulting from the death. There is nothing in the Massachusetts law which measures the damages by “pecuniary injuries.” The Massachusetts law, therefore, cannot be taken to define the nature of the damages that can be recovered under the Tort Claims Act. In those States where punitive damages only are allowed for wrongful death, a limitation on the amount of liability has no relevance to the policy of placing limits on liability where damages are only compensatory. By definition, punitive damages are based upon the degree of the defendant’s culpability. Where a state legislature imposes a maximum limit on such a punitive measure, it has decided that this is the highest punishment which should be imposed on a wrongdoer. This- limitation, based as it is on concepts of punishment, cannot control a recovery from which Congress has eliminated all considerations of punishment. Nor can it be concluded that the amendment was designed to remove discrimination in Alabama and Massachusetts between the recoveries allowed in suits against the Government and in suits against individual defendants. The amendment, in fact, perpetuates those differences. In suits in those States, recovery against the Government and against a private defendant will not be the same in identical circumstances. Where the degree of fault is high, but the pecuniary injury slight, a large recovery will represent the degree of the individual defendant’s culpability, but the Government will be liable only for the slight amount of damage actually, done. On the other hand, where fault is slight, but the pecuniary injury great, the individual defendant’s liability will similarly be less than that of the Government. These differences in recovery are inherent in the different measures of damages applicable in suits against the Government and against a private defendant where the State chooses to provide a punitive measure of damages for wrongful death.. By adopting in such a State a compensatory measure of damages in suits against the Government, Congress deliberately chose to permit these substantial differences in recovery to exist. We therefore cannot infer that Congress has, at the same time, provided that maximum recoveries be identical. The solution that Congress chose was (a) the adoption of the local law — whether punitive or compensatory — to determine the existence of liability of the United States, and (b) the substitution of “compensatory” for “punitive” damages where local law provides only the latter. When Congress rejected liability for “punitive” damages, we conclude it went the whole way and made inoperative the rules of local law governing the imposition of “punitive” damages. When Congress adopted “actual or compensatory damages,” measured by the “pecuniary injuries,” as the measure of liability in those States that awarded damages “only punitive in nature,” we conclude it did not preserve as a limitation on “compensatory” damages the limitation imposed by local law on “punitive” damages. It would require considerable tailoring of the Act to make it read that way. We refuse the invitation to achieve the result by judicial interpretation. Reversed. Plaintiffs were the administratrix of Crowley and the insurer of Crowley’s employer. The latter, having paid compensation to the decedent’s dependents, was entitled to sue the tort-feasor under the Massachusetts Workmen’s Compensation Act. Mass. Ann. Laws, 1949, c. 152, § 15. Ala. Code, 1940, Tit. 7, § 123; Southern R. Co. v. Sherrill, 232 Ala. 184, 193, 167 So. 731, 739-740; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Davis, 236 Ala. 191, 198, 181 So. 695, 699-700; Jack Cole, Inc. v. Walker, 240 Ala. 683, 200 So. 768. For the period from January 1, 1947, to December 31, 1949, Massachusetts provided for a $2,000 minimum and a $15,000 maximum under a Death Act providing compensatory damages. Mass. Acts 1947, c. 506. See Beatty v. Fox, 328 Mass. 216, 102 N. E. 2d 781. But on January 1, 1950, Massachusetts reverted to its system of punitive damages. Mass. Acts 1949, c. 427. The ceiling on the recovery was raised to $20,000 in 1951. Mass. Acts 1951, c. 250. H. R. 3668, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., which would have made the United States liable for punitive damages where state law provided only for punitive damages; H. R. 3690, which in its original form would have repealed the prohibition against award of puntive damages. The hearings, excerpts of which are furnished us in the Government’s brief, are not printed. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent, the owner of a tract of land it was developing as a residential subdivision, sued petitioners, the Williamson County (Tennessee) Regional Planning Commission and its members and staff, in United States District Court, alleging that petitioners’ application of various zoning laws and regulations to respondent’s property amounted to a “taking” of that property. At trial, the jury agreed and awarded respondent $350,000 as just compensation for the “taking.” Although the jury’s verdict was rejected by the District Court, which granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to petitioners, the verdict was reinstated on appeal. Petitioners and their amici urge this Court to overturn the jury’s award on the ground that a temporary regulatory interference with an investor’s profit expectation does not constitute a “taking” within the meaning of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or, alternatively, on the ground that even if such interference does constitute a taking, the Just Compensation Clause does not require money damages as recompense. Before we reach those contentions, we examine the procedural posture of respondent’s claim. I A Under Tennessee law, responsibility for land-use planning is divided between the legislative body of each of the State’s counties and regional and municipal “planning commissions.” The county legislative body is responsible for zoning ordinances to regulate the uses to which particular land and buildings may be put, and to control the density of population and the location and dimensions of buildings. Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-101 (1980). The planning commissions are responsible for more specific regulations governing the subdivision of land within their region or municipality for residential development. §§ 13-3-403,13-4-303. Enforcement of both the zoning ordinances and the subdivision regulations is accomplished in part through a requirement that the planning commission approve the plat of a subdivision before the plat may be recorded. §§13-3-402, 13-4-302 (1980 and Supp. 1984). Pursuant to § 13-7-101, the Williamson County “Quarterly Court,” which is the county’s legislative body, in 1973 adopted a zoning ordinance that allowed “cluster” development of residential areas. Under “cluster” zoning, “both the size and the width of individual residential lots in... [a] development may be reduced, provided... that the overall density of the entire tract remains constant-provided, that is, that an area equivalent to the total of the areas thus ‘saved’ from each individual lot is pooled and retained as common open space.” 2 N. Williams, American Land Planning Law § 47.01, pp. 212-213 (1974). Cluster zoning thus allows housing units to be grouped, or “clustered” together, rather than being evenly spaced on uniform lots. As required by §13-3-402, respondent’s predecessor-in-interest (developer) in 1973 submitted a preliminary plat for the cluster development of its tract, the Temple Hills Country Club Estates (Temple Hills), to the Williamson County Regional Planning Commission for approval. At that time, the county’s zoning ordinance and the Commission’s subdivision regulations required developers to seek review and approval of subdivision plats in two steps. The developer first was to submit for approval a preliminary plat, or “initial sketch plan,” indicating, among other things, the boundaries and acreage of the site, the number of dwelling units and their basic design, the location of existing and proposed roads, structures, lots, utility layouts, and open space, and the contour of the land. App. in No. 82-5388 (CA6), pp. 857, 871 (CA App.). Once approved, the preliminary plat served as a basis for the preparation of a final plat. Under the Commission’s regulations, however, approval of a preliminary plat “will not constitute acceptance of the final plat.” Id., at 872. Approval of a preliminary plat lapsed if a final plat was not submitted within one year of the date of the approval, unless the Commission granted an extension of time, or unless the approval of the preliminary plat was renewed. Ibid. The final plat, which is the official authenticated document that is recorded, was required to conform substantially to the preliminary plat, and, in addition, to include such details as the lines of all streets, lots, boundaries, and building setbacks. Id., at 875. On May 3, 1973, the Commission approved the developer’s preliminary plat for Temple Hills. App. 246-247. The plat indicated that the development was to include 676 acres, of which 260 acres would be open space, primarily in the form of a golf course. Id., at 422. A notation on the plat indicated that the number of “allowable dwelling units for total development” was 736, but lot lines were drawn in for only 469 units. The areas in which the remaining 276 units were to be placed were left blank and bore the notation “this parcel not to be developed until approved by the planning commission.” The plat also contained a disclaimer that “parcels with note ‘this parcel not to be developed until approved by the planning commission’ not a part of this plat and not included in gross area.” Ibid. The density of 736 allowable dwelling units was calculated by multiplying the number of acres (676) by the number of units allowed per acre (1.089). Id., at 361. Although the zoning regulations in effect in 1973 required that density be calculated “on the basis of total acreage less fifty percent (50%) of the land lying in the flood plain... and less fifty percent (50%) of all land lying on a slope with a grade in excess of twenty-five percent (25%),” CA App. 858, no deduction was made from the 676 acres for such land. Tr. 369. Upon approval of the preliminary plat, the developer conveyed to the county a permanent open space easement for the golf course, and began building roads and installing utility lines for the project. App. 259-260. The developer spent approximately $3 million building the golf course, and another $500,000 installing sewer and water facilities. Defendant’s Ex. 96. Before housing construction was to begin on a particular section, a final plat of that section was submitted for approval. Several sections, containing a total of 212 units, were given final approval by 1979. App. 260, 270, 278, 423. The preliminary plat, as well, was reapproved four times during that period. Id., at 270, 274, 362, 423. In 1977, the county changed its zoning ordinance to require that calculations of allowable density exclude 10% of the total acreage to account for roads and utilities. Id., at 363; CA App. 862. In addition, the number of allowable units was changed to one per acre from the 1.089 per acre allowed in 1973. Id., at 858, 862; Tr. 1169-1170, 1183. The Commission continued to apply the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations in effect in 1973 to Temple Hills, however, and reapproved the preliminary plat in 1978. In August 1979, the Commission reversed its position and decided that plats submitted for renewal should be evaluated under the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations in effect when the renewal was sought. App. 279-282. The Commission then renewed the Temple Hills plat under the ordinances and regulations in effect at that time. Id., at 283-284. In January 1980, the Commission asked the developer to submit a revised preliminary plat before it sought final approval for the remaining sections of the subdivision. The Commission reasoned that this was necessary because the original preliminary plat contained a number of surveying errors, the land available in the subdivision had been decreased inasmuch as the State had condemned part of the land for a parkway, and the areas marked “reserved for future development” had never been platted. Plaintiff’s Exs. 1078 and 1079; Tr. 164-168. A special committee (Temple Hills Committee) was appointed to work with the developer on the revision of the preliminary plat. Plaintiff’s Ex. 1081; Tr. 169-170. The developer submitted a revised preliminary plat for approval in October 1980. Upon review, the Commission’s staff and the Temple Hills Committee noted several problems with the revised plat. App. 304-305. First, the allowable density under the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations then in effect was 548 units, rather than the 736 units claimed under the preliminary plat approved in 1973. The difference reflected a decrease in 18.5 acres for the parkway, a decrease of 66 acres for the 10% deduction for roads, and an exclusion of 44 acres for 50% of the land lying on slopes exceeding a 25% grade. Second, two cul-de-sac roads that had become necessary because of the land taken for the parkway exceeded the maximum length allowed for such roads under the subdivision regulations in effect in both 1980 and 1973. Third, approximately 2,000 feet of road would have grades in excess of the maximum allowed by county road regulations. Fourth, the preliminary plat placed units on land that had grades in excess of 25% and thus was considered undevelopable under the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. Fifth, the developer had not fulfilled its obligations regarding the construction and maintenance of the main access road. Sixth, there were inadequate fire protection services for the area, as well as inadequate open space for children’s recreational activities. Finally, the lots proposed in the preliminary plat had a road frontage that was below the minimum required by the subdivision regulations in effect in 1980. The Temple Hills Committee recommended that the Commission grant a waiver of the regulations regarding the length of the cul-de-sacs, the maximum grade of the roads, and the minimum frontage requirement. Id., at 297, 304-306. Without addressing the suggestion that those three requirements be waived, the Commission disapproved the plat on two other grounds: first, the plat did not comply with the density requirements of the zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations, because no deduction had been made for the land taken for the parkway, and because there had been no deduction for 10% of the acreage attributable to roads or for 50% of the land having a slope of more than 25%; and second, lots were placed on slopes with a grade greater than 25%. Plaintiff’s Ex. 9112. The developer then appealed to the County Board of Zoning Appeals for an “interpretation of the Residential Cluster zoning [ordinance] as it relates to Temple Hills.” App. 314. On November 11, 1980, the Board determined that the Commission should apply the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations that were in effect in 1973 in evaluating the density of Temple Hills. Id., at 328. It also decided that in measuring which lots had excessive grades, the Commission should define the slope in a manner more favorable to the developer. Id., at 329. On November 26, respondent, Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, acquired through foreclosure the property in the Temple Hills subdivision that had not yet been developed, a total of 257.65 acres. Id., at 189-190. This included many of the parcels that had been left blank in the preliminary plat approved in 1973. In June 1981, respondent submitted two preliminary plats to the Commission — the plat that had been approved in 1973 and subsequently reapproved several times, and a plat indicating respondent’s plans for the undeveloped areas, which was similar to the plat submitted by the developer in 1980. Id., at 88. The new plat proposed the development of 688 units; the reduction from 736 units represented respondent’s concession that 18.5 acres should be removed from the acreage because that land had been taken for the parkway. Id., at 424, 425. On June 18, the Commission disapproved the plat for eight reasons, including the density and grade problems cited in the October 1980 denial, as well as the objections the Temple Hills Committee had raised in 1980 to the length of two cul-de-sacs, the grade of various roads, the lack of fire protection, the disrepair of the main-access road, and the minimum frontage. Id., at 370. The Commission declined to follow the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals that the plat should be evaluated by the 1973 zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, stating that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Commission. Id., at 187-188, 360-361. B Respondent then filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that the Commission had taken its property without just compensation and asserting that the Commission should be estopped under state law from denying approval of the project. Respondent’s expert witnesses testified that the design that would meet each of the Commission’s eight objections would allow respondent to build only 67 units, 409 fewer than respondent claims it is entitled to build, and that the development of only 67 sites would result in a net loss of over $1 million. App. 377. Petitioners’ expert witness, on the other hand, testified that the Commission’s eight objections could be overcome by a design that would allow development of approximately 300 units. Tr. 1467-1468. After a 3-week trial, the jury found that respondent had been denied the “economically viable” use of its property in violation of the Just Compensation Clause, and that the Commission was estopped under state law from requiring respondent to comply with the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations rather than those in effect in 1973. App. 32-33. The jury awarded damages of $350,000 for the temporary taking of respondent’s property. Id., at 33-34. The court entered a permanent injunction requiring the Commission to apply the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations in effect in 1973 to Temple Hills, and to approve the plat submitted in 1981. Id., at 34. The court then granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the Commission on the taking claim, reasoning in part that respondent was unable to derive economic benefit from its property on a temporary basis only, and that such a temporary deprivation, as a matter of law, cannot constitute a taking. Id., at 36, 41. In addition, the court modified its permanent injunction to require the Commission merely to apply the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations in effect in 1973 to the project, rather than requiring approval of the plat, in order to allow the parties to resolve “legitimate technical questions of whether plaintiff meets the requirements of the 1973 regulations,” id., at 42, through the applicable state and local appeals procedures. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. 729 F. 2d 402 (1984). The court held that application of government regulations affecting an owner’s use of property may constitute a taking if the regulation denies the owner all “economically viable” use of the land, and that the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the property had no economically feasible use during the time between the Commission’s refusal to approve the preliminary plat and the jury’s verdict. Id., at 405-406. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that respondent never had submitted a plat that complied with the 1973 regulations, and thus never had acquired rights that could be taken, the court held that the jury’s estoppel verdict indicates that the jury must have found that respondent had acquired a “vested right” under state law to develop the subdivision according to the plat submitted in 1973. Id., at 407. Even if respondent had no vested right under state law to finish the development, the jury was entitled to find that respondent had a reasonable investment-backed expectation that the development could be completed, and that the actions of the Commission interfered with that expectation. Ibid. The court rejected the District Court’s holding that the taking verdict could not stand as a matter of law. A temporary denial of property could be a taking, and was to be analyzed in the same manner as a permanent taking. Finally, relying upon the dissent in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U. S. 621, 636 (1981), the court determined that damages are required to compensate for a temporary taking. hH hH We granted certiorari to address the question whether Federal, State, and local Governments must pay money damages to a landowner whose property allegedly has been “taken” temporarily by the application of government regulations. 469 U. S. 815 (1984). Petitioners and their amici contend that we should answer the question in the negative by ruling that government regulation can never effect a “taking” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. They recognize that government regulation may be so restrictive that it denies a property owner all reasonable beneficial use of its property, and thus has the same effect as an appropriation of the property for public use, which concededly would be a taking under the Fifth Amendment. According to petitioners, however, regulation that has such an effect should not be viewed as a taking. Instead, such regulation should be viewed as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, because it is an attempt by government to use its police power to effect a result that is so unduly oppressive to the property owner that it constitutionally can be effected only through the power of eminent domain. Violations of the Due Process Clause, petitioners’ argument concludes, need not be remedied by “just compensation.” The Court twice has left this issue undecided. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, supra; Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 263 (1980). Once again, we find that the question is not properly presented, and must be left for another day. For whether we examine the Planning Commission’s application of its regulations under Fifth Amendment “taking” jurisprudence, or under the precept of due process, we conclude that respondent’s claim is premature. HH HH k — i We examine the posture of respondent’s cause of action first by viewing it as stating a claim under the Just Compensation Clause. This Court often has referred to regulation that “goes too far,” Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 415 (1922), as a “taking.” See, e. g., Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 1004-1005 (1984); Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S., at 260; PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74, 83 (1980); Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 174 (1979); Andrus v. Allard, 444 U. S. 51, 65-66 (1979); Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 124 (1978); Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U. S. 590, 594 (1962); United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U. S. 155, 168 (1958). Even assuming that those decisions meant to refer literally to the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and therefore stand for the proposition that regulation may effect a taking for which the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation, see San Diego, 450 U. S., at 647-653 (dissenting opinion), and even assuming further that the Fifth Amendment requires the payment of money damages to compensate for such a taking, the jury verdict in this case cannot be upheld.'Because respondent has not yet obtained a final decision regarding the application of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to its property, nor utilized the procedures Tennessee provides for obtaining just compensation, respondent’s claim is not ripe. A As the Court has made clear in several recent decisions, a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue. In Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264 (1981), for example, the Court rejected a claim that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 447, 30 U. S. C. § 1201 et seq., effected a taking because: “There is no indication in the record that appellees have availed themselves of the opportunities provided by the Act to obtain administrative relief by requesting either a variance from the approximate-original-contour requirement of § 515(d) or a waiver from the surface mining restrictions in § 522(e). If [the property owners] were to seek administrative relief under these procedures, a mutually acceptable solution might well be reached with regard to individual properties, thereby obviating any need to address the constitutional questions. The potential for such administrative solutions confirms the conclusion that the taking issue decided by the District Court simply is not ripe for judicial resolution.” 452 U. S., at 297 (footnote omitted). Similarly, in Agins v. Tiburon, supra, the Court held that a challenge to the application of a zoning ordinance was not ripe because the property owners had not yet submitted a plan for development of their property. 447 U. S., at 260. In Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, supra, the Court declined to find that the application of New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Law to Grand Central Terminal effected a taking because, although the Landmarks Preservation Commission had disapproved a plan for a 50-story office building above the terminal, the property owners had not sought approval for any other plan, and it therefore was not clear whether the Commission would deny approval for all uses that would enable the plaintiffs to derive economic benefit from the property. 438 U. S., at 136-137. Respondent’s claim is in a posture similar to the claims the Court held premature in Hodel. Respondent has submitted a plan for developing its property, and thus has passed beyond the Agins threshold. But, like the Hodel plaintiffs, respondent did not then seek variances that would have allowed it to develop the property according to its proposed plat, notwithstanding the Commission’s finding that the plat did not comply with the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. It appears that variances could have been granted to resolve at least five of the Commission’s eight objections to the plat. The Board of Zoning Appeals had the power to grant certain variances from the zoning ordinance, including the ordinance’s density requirements and its restriction on placing units on land with slopes having a grade in excess of 25%. Tr. 1204-1205; see n. 3, supra. The Commission had the power to grant variances from the subdivision regulations, including the cul-de-sac, road-grade, and frontage requirements. Indeed, the Temple Hills Committee had recommended that the Commission grant variances from those regulations. App. 304-306. Nevertheless, respondent did not seek variances from either the Board or the Commission. Respondent argues that it “did everything possible to resolve the conflict with the commission,” Brief for Respondent 42, and that the Commission’s denial of approval for respondent’s plat was equivalent to a denial of variances. The record does not support respondent’s claim, however. There is no evidence that respondent applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances from the zoning ordinance. As noted, the developer sought a ruling that the ordinance in effect in 1973 should be applied, but neither respondent nor the developer sought a variance from the requirements of either the 1973 or 1980 ordinances. Further, although the subdivision regulations in effect in 1981 required that applications to the Commission for variances be in writing, and that notice of the application be given to owners of adjacent property, the record contains no evidence that respondent ever filed a written request for variances from the cul-de-sac, road-grade, or frontage requirements of the subdivision regulations, or that respondent ever gave the required notice. App. 212-213; see also Tr. 1255-1257. Indeed, in a letter to the Commission written shortly before its June 18, 1981, meeting to consider the preliminary sketch, respondent took the position that it would not request variances from the Commission until after the Commission approved the proposed plat: “[Respondent] stands ready to work with the Planning Commission concerning the necessary variances. Until the initial sketch is renewed, however, and the developer has an opportunity to do detailed engineering work it is impossible to determine the exact nature of any variances that may be needed.” Plaintiff’s Ex. 9028, p. 6. The Commission’s regulations clearly indicated that unless a developer applied for a variance in writing and upon notice to other property owners, “any condition shown on the plat which would require a variance will constitute grounds for disapproval of the plat.” CA App. 933. Thus, in the face of respondent’s refusal to follow the procedures for requesting a variance, and its refusal to provide specific information about the variances it would require, respondent hardly can maintain that the Commission’s disapproval of the preliminary plat was equivalent to a final decision that no variances would be granted. As in Hodel, Agins, and Penn Central, then, respondent has not yet obtained a final decision regarding how it will be allowed to develop its property. Our reluctance to examine taking claims until such a final decision has been made is compelled by the very nature of the inquiry required by the Just Compensation Clause. Although “[t]he question of what constitutes a ‘taking’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment has proved to be a problem of considerable difficulty,” Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S., at 123, this Court consistently has indicated that among the factors of particular significance in the inquiry are the economic impact of the challenged action and the extent to which it interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations. Id., at 124. See also Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S., at 1005; PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S., at 83; Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S., at 175. Those factors simply cannot be evaluated until the administrative agency has arrived at a final, definitive position regarding how it will apply the regulations at issue to the particular land in question. Here, for example, the jury’s verdict indicates only that it found that respondent would be denied the economically feasible use of its property if it were forced to develop the subdivision in a manner that would meet each of the Commission’s eight objections. It is not clear whether the jury would have found that the respondent had been denied all reasonable beneficial use of the property had any of the eight objections been met through the grant of a variance. Indeed, the expert witness who testified regarding the economic impact of the Commission’s actions did not itemize the effect of each of the eight objections, so the jury would have been unable to discern how a grant of a variance from any one of the regulations at issue would have affected the profitability of the development. App. 377; see also id., at 102-104. Accordingly, until the Commission determines that no variances will be granted, it is impossible for the jury to find, on this record, whether respondent “will be unable to derive economic benefit” from the land. Respondent asserts that it should not be required to seek variances from the regulations because its suit is predicated upon 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and there is no requirement that a plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a § 1983 action. Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U. S. 496 (1982). The question whether administrative remedies must be exhausted is conceptually distinct, however, from the question whether an administrative action must be final before it is judicially reviewable. See FTC v. Standard Oil Co., 449 U. S. 232, 243 (1980); Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. EPA, 669 F. 2d 903, 908 (CA3 1982). See generally 13A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3532.6 (1984). While the policies underlying the two concepts often overlap, the finality requirement is concerned with whether the initial decisionmaker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury; the exhaustion requirement generally refers to administrative and judicial procedures by which an injured party may seek review of an adverse decision and obtain a remedy if the decision is found to be unlawful or otherwise inappropriate. Patsy concerned the latter, not the former. The difference is best illustrated by comparing the procedure for seeking a variance with the procedures that, under Patsy, respondent would not be required to exhaust. While it appears that the State provides procedures by which an aggrieved property owner may seek a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of zoning and planning actions taken by county authorities, see Fallin v. Knox County Bd. of Comm’rs, 656 S. W. 2d 338 (Tenn. 1983); Tenn. Code Ann. §§27-8-101, 27-9-101 to 27-9-113, and 29-14-101 to 29-14-113 (1980 and Supp. 1984), respondent would not be required to resort to those procedures before bringing its §1983 action, because those procedures clearly are remedial. Similarly, respondent would not be required to appeal the Commission’s rejection of the preliminary plat to the Board of Zoning Appeals, because the Board was empowered, at most, to review that rejection, not to participate in the Commission’s decisionmaking. Resort to those procedures would result in a judgment whether the Commission’s actions violated any of respondent’s rights. In contrast, resort to the procedure for obtaining variances would result in a conclusive determination by the Commission whether it would allow respondent to develop the subdivision in the manner respondent proposed. The Commission’s refusal to approve the preliminary plat does not determine that issue; it prevents respondent from developing its subdivision without obtaining the necessary variances, but leaves open the possibility that respondent may develop the subdivision according to its plat after obtaining the variances. In short, the Commission’s denial of approval does not conclusively determine whether respondent will be denied all reasonable beneficial use of its property, and therefore is not a final, reviewable decision. B A second reason the taking claim is not yet ripe is that respondent did not seek compensation through the procedures the State has provided for doing so. The Fifth Amendment does not proscribe the taking of property; it proscribes taking without just compensation. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S., at 297, n. 40. Nor does the Fifth Amendment require that just compensation be paid in advance of, or contemporaneously with, the taking; all that is required is that a “‘reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation’ ” exist at the time of the taking. Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 124-125 (1974) (quoting Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 135 U. S. 641, 659 (1890)). See also Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S., at 1016; Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U. S. 18, 21 (1940); Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U. S. 95, 104 (1932). If the government has provided an adequate process for obtaining compensation, and if resort to that process “yield[s] just compensation,” then the property owner “has no claim against the Government” for a taking. Monsanto, 467 U. S., at 1013, 1018, n. 21. Thus, we have held that taking claims against the Federal Government are premature until the property owner has availed itself of the process provided by the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. §1491. Monsanto, 467 U. S., at 1016-1020. Similarly, if a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation. The recognition that a property owner has not suffered a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until the owner has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain just compensation through the procedures provided by the State for obtaining such compensation is analogous to the Court’s holding in Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 (1981). There, the Court ruled that a person deprived of property through a random and unauthorized act by a state employee does not state a claim under the Due Process Clause merely by alleging the deprivation of property. In such a situation, the Constitution does not require predeprivation process because it would be impossible or impracticable to provide a meaningful hearing before the deprivation. Instead, the Constitution is satisfied by the provision of meaningful postdeprivation process. Thus, the State’s action is not “complete” in the sense of causing a constitutional injury “unless or until the state fails to provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy for the property loss.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517, 532, n. 12 (1984). Likewise, because the Constitution does not require pretaking compensation, and is instead satisfied by a reasonable and adequate provision for obtaining compensation after the taking, the State’s action here is not “complete” until the State fails to provide adequate compensation for the taking. Under Tennessee law, a property owner may bring an inverse condemnation action to obtain just compensation for an alleged taking of property under certain circumstances. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-123 (1980). The statutory scheme for eminent domain proceedings outlines the procedures by which government entities must exercise the right of eminent domain. §§29-16-101 to 29-16-121. The State is prohibited from “entering] upon [condemned] land” until these procedures have been utilized and compensation has been paid the owner, § 29-16-122, but if a government entity does take possession of the land without following the required procedures, “the owner of such land may petition for a jury of inquest, in which case the same proceedings may be had, as near as may be, as hereinbefore provided; or he may sue for damages in the ordinary way....” § 29-16-123. The Tennessee state courts have interpreted §29-16-123 to allow recovery through inverse condemnation where the “taking” is effected by restrictive zoning laws or development regulations. See Davis v. Metropolitan Govt. of Nashville, 620 S. W. 2d 532, 533-534 (Tenn. App. 1981); Speight v. Lockhart, 524 S. W. 2d 249 (Tenn. App. 1975). Respondent has not shown that the inverse condemnation procedure is unavailable or inadequate, and until it has utilized that procedure, its taking claim is premature. > HH We turn to an analysis of respondent’s claim under the due process theory that petitioners espouse. As noted, under that theory government regulation does not effect a taking for which the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation; instead, regulation that goes so far that it has the same effect as a taking by eminent domain is an invalid exercise of the police power, violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Should the government wish to accomplish the goals of such regulation, it must proceed through the exercise of its eminent domain power, and, of course, pay just compensation for any property taken. The remedy for a regulation that goes too far, under the due process theory, Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

D

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court. The question to be decided here is a narrow one. The Judicial Code provides that in the United States Courts of Appeals “[cjases and controversies shall be heard and determined by a court or division of not more than three judges, unless a hearing or rehearing before the court in banc is ordered by a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit who are in active service.” It further provides that “[a] court in banc shall consist of all active circuit judges of the circuit.” 28 U. S. C. §46 (c). The sole issue presented is whether a circuit judge who has retired is eligible under this statute to participate in the decision of a case on rehearing en banc. We have concluded that he is not. This litigation arose when the respondents, who had chartered ships from the Government under the Merchant Ship Sales Act, 50 U. S. C. App. §§ 1735 et seg., sued the Government in the District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover amounts of allegedly excessive charter hire which had been assessed by the Maritime Commission. The Government moved to dismiss the libels on the ground that the claims were barred by the two-year limitation period prescribed by the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U. S. C. § 745. The libels were dismissed in the District Court on the authority of the Second Circuit decisions in Sword Line, Inc., v. United States, 228 F. 2d 344, 230 F. 2d 75, aff’d as to admiralty jurisdiction, 351 U. S. 976, and American Eastern Corp. v. United States, 231 F. 2d 664. The District Court’s decisions were thereafter affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That court, consisting of Circuit Judges Medina and Hincks and retired District Judge Leibell, held that the issues were controlled by the earlier Sword Line and American Eastern decisions. The court’s opinion stated, however, that “[i]f the subject-matter of these appeals were res nova, we are by no means sure that our dispositions would coincide with those made by the majority opinion in Sword Line and by American Eastern. However, we will not overrule these recent decisions of other panels of the court.” 265 F. 2d 136,142. Thereafter, on December 19, 1957, the Court of Appeals granted the libellants’ petition for rehearing en banc and ordered that argument thereon be confined to written briefs to be submitted within twenty days. On March 1, 1958, Judge Medina retired pursuant to the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 371 (b). Almost five months later, on .July 28, 1958, the court issued its en banc decision. Circuit Judges Hincks and Moore and retired Circuit Judge Medina joined an opinion ordering the earlier three-judge decision withdrawn and remanding the causes to the District Court, 265 F. 2d 136, 144. Judges Clark and Waterman dissented. In his dissenting opinion Judge Clark expressed doubt as to a retired judge’s eligibility to participate in an en banc decision. 265 F. 2d 136, 153. The Government then filed a petition for further rehearing en banc, directed primarily to the question which had been raised by Judge Clark. The petition was denied in an opinion by Judge Hincks joined by Judges Moore and Medina, stating the view that “[s]ince Judge Medina was a member of the court in banc which was duly constituted to hear and determine the issues raised by the petition for rehearing, we think his subsequent retirement did not affect his competence to participate in the decision thereafter reached.” 265 F. 2d 136, 154. Judges Clark and Waterman filed a separate statement in which they expressed the opinion that Judge Medina’s participation in the en banc determination was precluded by the plain language of the controlling statute. 265 F. 2d 136, 155. Certiorari was granted to consider a question of importance to the Courts of Appeals in the administration of their judicial business. 361 U. S. 861. As a preliminary to decision of the precise question before us it is important to make clear that this case in no way involves the eligibility of a retired judge to participate in the hearing, rehearing or determination of a case as a member of a conventional three-judge Court of Appeals. Such participation is governed by different statutory provisions. The Judicial Code explicitly provides that “judges designated or assigned” shall be “competent to sit as judges” of such a court. 28 U. S. C. § 43 (b). Other provisions of the Code spell out in detail the system under which designations and assignments of retired judges are to be made. 28 U. S. C. §§ 294, 295, 296. Moreover, there is not involved here any issue as to the procedure to be followed by a Court of Appeals in determining whether a hearing or rehearing en banc is to be ordered. In the Western Pacific Railroad Case, 345 U. S. 247, it was held that this question is largely to be left to intramural determination by each of the Courts of Appeals. “The court is left free to devise its own administrative machinery to provide the means whereby a majority may order such a hearing.” 345 U. S., at 250. Here we' are concerned only with the specific provision of the Judicial Code which ordains that en banc proceedings shall be “heard and determined” by a court consisting of all the “active circuit judges” of the circuit involved. The literal meaning of the words seems plain enough. An “active” judge is a judge who has not retired “from regular active service.” 28 U. S. C. § 371 (b). A case or controversy is “determined” when it is decided. There is nothing in the history of the legislation to indicate that these words should be understood to mean anything else than what they say. As the Reviser’s Note indicates, and as this Court pointed out in the Western Pacific Railroad Case, 345 U. S., at 250, 251, where the legislative history was fully reviewed, the statutory provision was added to the Judicial Code in 1948 simply as a “legislative ratification of Textile Mills Securities Corp. v. Commissioner, 314 U. S. 326 (1941) — a decision which went no further than to sustain the power of a Court of Appeals to order a hearing en banc.” The view that a retired circuit judge is eligible to participate in an en banc decision thus finds support neither in the language of the controlling statute nor in the circumstances of its enactment. Indeed, Congress may well have thought that it would frustrate a basic purpose of the legislation not to confine the power of en banc decision to the permanent active membership of a Court of Appeals. En banc courts are the exception, not the rule. They are convened only when extraordinary circumstances exist that call for authoritative consideration and decision by those charged with the administration and development of the law of the circuit. When such circumstances appear, en banc determinations make “for more effective judicial administration. Conflicts within a circuit will be avoided. Finality of decision in the circuit courts of appeal will be promoted. Those considerations are especially important in view of the fact that in our federal judicial system these courts are the courts of last resort in the run of ordinary cases.” Textile Mills Corp. v. Commissioner, 314 U. S., at 334-335. “The principal utility of determinations by the courts of appeals in banc is to enable the court to maintain its integrity as an institution by making it possible for a majority of its judges always to control and thereby to secure uniformity and continuity in its decisions, while enabling the court at the same time to follow the efficient and time-saving procedure of having panels of three judges hear and decide the vast majority of cases as to which no division exists within the court.” Maris, Hearing and Rehearing Cases in Banc, 14 F. R. D. 91, at 96 (1954). As Judge Clark put it in the present case, the evident policy of the statute was to provide “that the active circuit judges shall determine the major doctrinal trends of the future for their court . . . .” 265 F. 2d, at 155. Persuasive arguments could be advanced that an exception should be made to permit a retired circuit judge to participate in en banc determination of cases where, as here, he took part in the original three-judge hearing, or where, as here, he had not yet retired when the en banc hearing was originally ordered. Indeed, the Judicial Conference of the United States has approved suggested legislative changes that would provide such an exception, and a bill to amend the statute has been introduced in the Congress. But this only serves to emphasize that if the statute is to be changed, it is for Congress, not for us, to change it. We conclude for these reasons that under existing legislation a retired circuit judge is without power to participate in an en banc Court of Appeals determination, and accordingly that the judgment must be set aside. American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 387; Frad v. Kelly, 302 U. S. 312, 316-319. In reaching this conclusion we intimate no view as to the merits of the underlying litigation. The judgment is vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Vacated and remanded. 141 F. Supp. 58. Two of the libels were dismissed upon the same ground by another district judge in an opinion which is unreported. “Any justice or judge of the United States appointed to hold office during good behavior may retain his office but retire from regular active service after attaining the age of seventy years and after serving at least ten years continuously or otherwise, or after attaining the age of sixty-five years and after serving at least fifteen years continuously or otherwise.” Judge Lumbard did not participate because of a prior connection with the litigation as United States Attorney. In accord with this flexible statutory scheme, retired federal judges the country over have rendered devoted service in the trial and appellate courts of the United States, voluntarily and without economic incentive of any kind. An enlightening discussion by Judge Maris of the thorough administrative machinery worked out by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit appears in 14 F. R. D. 91. It is worth noting that the Textile Mills opinion itself carefully distinguished between circuit judges in active service and those who have retired. 314 U. S., at 327. At its Annual Meeting in September, 1959, the Judicial Conference of the United States received a joint report of its Committees on Court Administration and Revision of the Laws, stating their view that under the present law retired judges are not eligible to participate in en banc proceedings. “However, the Committees thought it proper to permit a retired circuit judge to be a member of the court of appeals sitting in banc in the rehearing of a case in which he has sat, by assignment, in the panel of the court which heard the case originally.” The Conference agreed and approved a draft of a bill, presented by the Committees, which would add the following sentence to 28 U. S. C. § 46 (c): “A circuit judge of the circuit who has retired from regular active service shall also be competent to sit as a judge of the court in banc in the rehearing of a case or controversy if he sat in the court or division at the original hearing thereof.” Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (1959), pp. 9-10. A bill to effect this change was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Celler on April 5, 1960, as H. R. 11567, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 106 Cong. Rec. 6865. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. This case under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act is before us a second time, now raising the question whether the Act bars nominal compensation to a worker who is presently able to earn at least as much as before he was injured. We hold nominal compensation proper when there is a significant possibility that the worker’s wage-earning capacity will fall below the level of his preinjury wages sometime in the future. I Respondent John Rambo injured his back and leg in 1980 while doing longshore work for petitioner Metropolitan Stevedore Company. Rambo claimed against Metropolitan for compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA or Act), 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U. S. C. §901 et seq., and the parties stipulated that Rambo had sustained a 22/2% permanent partial disability, which would normally reflect a $120.24 decline in his pre-injury $534.38 weekly wage. This, in turn, was reduced to an award of $80.16 per week under §8(c)(21) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 908(c)(21), providing for compensation at the rate of 66%% of the difference between an employee’s preinjury wages and postinjury wage-earning capacity. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) entered an order incorporating this stipulated award. App. 51; Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo (Rambo I), 515 U. S. 291, 293 (1995). Rambo was later trained as a longshore crane operator and got full-time work with his new skills, with occasional stints as a heavy-truck operator to earn extra pay. His resulting annual eárnings between 1985 and 1990 were about three times what he had made before his injury. As a consequence, Metropolitan moved in 1989 to modify Rambo’s earlier disability award, see § 22, 33 U. S. C. § 922, and a hearing was held before an ALJ. While there was no evidence that Rambo’s physical condition had improved, the ALJ ordered the disability payments discontinued based on the tripling of Rambo’s preinjury earnings: “After taking into consideration the increase in wages due to the rate of inflation and any increase in salary for the particular job, it is evident that [Rambo] no longer has a wage-earning capacity loss. Although [Rambo] testified that he might lose his job at some future time, the evidence shows that [Rambo] would not be at any greater risk of losing his job than anyone else. Moreover, no evidence has been offered to show that [Rambo’s] age, education, and vocational training are such that he would be at greater risk of losing his present job or in seeking new employment in the event that he should be required to do so. Likewise, the evidence does not show that [Rambo’s] employer is a beneficent one. On the contrary, the evidence shows that [Rambo] is not only able to work full time as a crane operator, but that he is able to work as a heavy lift truck operator when the time is available within which to do so.” App. 55. See also Rambo I, supra, at 293-294. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the modification order, App. 57, 61, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed on the ground that § 22 authorizes modification of an award only for changed physical conditions, Rambo v. Director, OWCP, 28 F. 3d 86 (1994). We in turn reversed in Rambo /, holding that “[t]he fundamental purpose of the Act is to compensate employees (or their beneficiaries) for wage-earning capacity lost because of injury; where that wage-earning capacity has been reduced, restored, or improved, the basis for compensation changes and the statutory scheme allows for modification.” 515 U. S., at 298. Since the essence of wage-earning capacity is economic, not physical, id., at 296-298, that capacity may be affected “even without any change in the employee’s physical condition,” id., at 301. On remand, the Court of Appeals again reversed the order discontinuing compensation payments. It recognized that when a worker suffers a significant physical impairment without experiencing a present loss of earnings, there may be serious tension between the statutory mandate to account for future effects of disability in determining a claimant’s wage-earning capacity (and thus entitlement to compensation), see § 8(h), 33 U. S. C. § 908(h), and the statutory prohibition against issuing any new order to pay benefits more than one year after compensation ends or an order is entered denying an award, see § 22, 33 U. S. C. § 922. The Court of Appeals reconciled the two provisions by reading the statute to authorize a present nominal award subject to later modification if conditions should change. Rambo v. Director, OWCP, 81 F. 3d 840, 844 (1996). The court reversed the order ending Rambo’s benefits as unsupported by substantial evidence, due to “overemphasis on] Rambo’s current status and failfure] to consider the effect of Rambo’s permanent partial disability on his future earnings,” ibid., and it remanded for entry of a nominal award reflecting Rambo’s permanent partial disability, id., at 845. We granted certiorari. 519 U. S. 1002 (1996). While we agree that nominal compensation may be awarded under certain circumstances despite the worker’s present ability to earn more than his preinjury wage, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals directing entry of such an award and remand for factfinding by the ALJ. II The LHWCA authorizes compensation not for physical injury as such, but for economic harm to the injured worker from decreased ability to earn wages. See Rambo I, supra, at 297-298. The Act speaks of this economic harm as “disability,” defined as the “incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment,” § 2(10), 33 U. S. C. § 902(10). Such incapacity is conclusively presumed for certain enumerated or “scheduled” injuries, which are compensated at 66%% of the worker’s preinjury wages over specified periods of time. See §§ 8(c)(1)—8(c)(20), 8(c)(22), 33 U.S.C. §§ 908(c)(1)-908(c)(20), 908(c)(22); Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Pro grams, 449 U. S. 268, 269 (1980). For other, so-called “unscheduled” injuries resulting in less than total disability, the Act sets compensation at “66% per centum of the difference between the average weekly [preinjury] wages of the employee and the employee’s wage-earning capacity thereafter.” § 8(c)(21), 33 U. S. C. § 908(c)(21) (permanent partial disability); see also § 8(e), 33 U. S. C. § 908(e) (temporary partial disability). For figuring this difference, § 8(h) explains that the claimant’s postinjury “wage-earning capacity” is to be determined “by his actual earnings if such actual earnings fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity: Provided, however, That if the employee has no actual earnings or his actual earnings do not fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity, the deputy commissioner may, in the interest of justice, fix such wage-earning capacity as shall be reasonable, having due regard to the nature of his injury, the degree of physical impairment, his usual employment, and any other factors or circumstances in the case which may affect his capacity to earn wages in his disabled condition, including the effect of disability as it may naturally extend into the future.” § 8(h), 33 U. S. C. § 908(h). See also § 10, 33 U. S. C. § 910 (method for determining prein-jury wages). See generally Rambo I, 515 U. S., at 297-298. We may summarize these provisions and their implications this way. Disability is a measure of earning capacity lost as a result of work-related injury. By distinguishing between the diminished capacity and the injury itself, and by defining capacity in relation both to the injured worker’s old job and to other employment, the statute makes it clear that disability is the product of injury and opportunities in the job market. Capacity, and thus disability, is not necessarily reflected in actual wages earned after injury, see id., at 300-301; Potomac Elec. Power, supra, at 272, n. 5, and when it is not, the factfinder under the Act must make a determination of disability that is “reasonable” and “in the interest of justice,” and one that takes account of the disability’s future effects, § 8(h). In some cases a disparity between the worker’s actual postinjury wages and his job-market capacity will be obvious, along with the reasons for it. If a disabled worker with some present capacity chooses not to work at all, or to work at less than his capacity, a windfall is avoided by determining present disability and awarding a benefit accordingly. See, e. g., Penrod Drilling Co. v. Johnson, 905 F. 2d 84, 87-88 (CA5 1990). At the other extreme, a worker with some present disability may nonetheless be fortunate enough to receive not merely the market wages appropriate for his diminished capacity, but full preinjury wages (say, because an employer is generous, for whatever reason). See, e. g., Travelers Ins. Co. v. McLellan, 288 F. 2d 250, 251 (CA2 1961); see also Edwards v. Director, OWCP, 999 F. 2d 1374, 1375-1376 (CA9 1993) (holding that wages from short-lived employment do not represent actual earning capacity on open market). Once again, the present disability may still be calculated and a corresponding award made. A problem in applying the provisions applicable when there is a disparity between current wages and wage-earning capacity arises in a case like this one, however. The worker now receives appropriate market wages as high or higher than those before his injury, thus experiencing no decline in present capacity. And yet (we assume for now) there is some particular likelihood that in the future the combination of injury and market conditions may leave him with a lower capacity. The question is whether such a person is presently disabled within the meaning of the statute, and if so, what provision should be made for the potential effects of disability in the future. There are two reasons to treat such a person as presently disabled under the statute. The first follows from the provision of law that on its face bars an injured worker from waiting for adverse economic effects to occur in the future before bringing his disability claim, which generally must be filed within a year of injury. § 13(a), 33 U. S. C. § 913(a); Pillsbury v. United Engineering Co., 342 U. S. 197 (1952). He is also barred from seeking a new, modified award after one year from the date of any denial or termination of benefits. § 22, 33 U. S. C. § 922. Because an injured worker who has a basis to anticipate wage loss in the fixture resulting from a combination of his injury and job-market opportunities must nonetheless claim promptly, it is likely that Congress intended “disability” to include the injury-related potential for future wage loss. And because a losing claimant loses for all time after one year from the denial or termination of benefits, it is equally likely that Congress intended such a claimant to obtain some award of benefits in anticipation of the future potential loss. This conclusion is confirmed by the provision of § 8(h) that in cases of disparity between actual wages and earning capacity, the natural effects of disability that will occur in the future must be given “due regard” as one of the “factors or circumstances in the case which may affect [a claimant’s] capacity to earn wages in his disabled condition.” Although this mandate is phrased in general terms, its practical effect is limited to the class of cases at issue here, where the worker is presently able to earn at least as much as before his injury. In all other cases, when injury depresses the claimant’s wage-earning capacity under the conditions prevailing at the time of an award, so that the present effects of his disability are unquestionably compensable immediately, the Act already makes provision for the future effects of disability by means of § 22, which liberally permits modification of awards in response to changed conditions that occur within one year of the last payment of compensation (or a denial or termination of benefits). 33 U. S. C. § 922. Rambo I held that this provision allows modification whenever a changed combination of training and economic (let alone physical) circumstances reduces, restores, or improves wage-earning capacity. 515 U. S., at 296-297. Since ongoing awards may be modified if future possibilities become present realities, there is no need to account for such possibilities in calculating a worker’s immediately compensable disability; the Act plainly takes a wait-and-see approach to future contingencies here. The first award in this case was a standard illustration of the proper practice of basing capacity determinations and compensation awards on present reality. If Rambo’s initial award had already been discounted to reflect the odds of his obtaining less strenuous but higher paying work in the future, Rambo I could hardly have held that the Act permitted reduction of that initial award again when Rambo actually received training as a crane operator and found work using his new skills. The first award simply reflected the degree of diminished capacity operative at the time it was made, and it was proper to revise it when conditions changed. Thus, if § 8(h)’s admonition to consider future effects when calculating capacity has any practical application, it must be because it may apply in a case such as this one, in which there is no present wage loss and would thus be no present award if compensation were to be based solely on present employment conditions. If the future were ignored and compensation altogether denied whenever present earning capacity had not (yet) declined, § 22 would bar modification in response to future changes in condition after one year. To implement the mandate of § 8(h) in this class of cases, then, “disability” must be read broadly enough to cover loss of capacity not just as a product of the worker’s injury and present market conditions, but as a potential product of injury and market opportunities in the future. There must, in other words, be a cognizable category of disability that is potentially substantial, but presently nominal in character. There being, then, a need to account for potential future effects in a present determination of wage-earning capacity (and thus disability) when capacity does not immediately decline, the question is which of two basic methods to choose to do this. The first would be to make a one-time calculation of a periodic benefit following the approach of the common law of torts, which bases lump-sum awards for loss of future earnings on an estimate of “the difference... between the value of the plaintiff’s services as they will be in view of the harm and as they would have been had there been no harm.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 924, Comment d, p. 525 (1977). This predictive approach ordinarily requires consideration of every possible variable that could have an impact on ability to earn, including “[ejnvironmental factors such as the condition of the labor market, the chance of advancement or of being laid off, and the like.” 4 F. Harper, F. James, & O. Gray, Law of Torts § 25.8, pp. 550-551 (2d ed. 1986) (footnote omitted). Prediction of future employment may well be the most troublesome step in this wide-ranging enquiry. As the tripling of Rambo’s own earnings shows, a claimant’s future ability to earn wages will vary as greatly as opportunity varies, and any estimate of wage-earning potential turns in part on the probabilities over time that suitable jobs within certain ranges of pay will actually be open. In these calculations, there is room for error. Cf. id., §25.8, at 553 (to determine lost wage-earning capacity, juries must often “use their judgment (in effect,... speculate)”). That juries in tort cases must routinely engage in such difficult predictions (compounded further by discounting for present value) is the price paid by the common-law approach for the finality of a one-time lump-sum judgment. The second possible way to account for future developments would be to do in this situation just what the Act already does through the modification provision in the run of cases: to wait and see, that is, to base calculation of diminished wage-earning capacity, and thus compensation, on current realities and to permit modifications reflecting the actual effects of an employee’s disability as manifested over time. This way, finality is exchanged for accuracy, both in compensating a worker for the actual economic effects of his injury, and in charging the employer and his insurer for that amount alone. Metropolitan denies that the second, wait-and-see alternative is even open, arguing that § 8(h) gives the factfinder only two choices: either deny compensation altogether because a claimant’s actual wages have not diminished, or, if the ALJ concludes that the worker’s current income does not fairly represent his present wage-earning capacity, calculate the extent of the worker’s disability (and his consequent entitlement to compensation) in toto based on all relevant factors, including the future effects of the disability. See Brief for Petitioner 9. What we have already said, however, shows the unsoundness of Metropolitan’s two options. The practical effect of denying any compensation to a disabled claimant on the ground that he is presently able to earn as much as (or more than) before his injury would run afoul of the Act’s mandate to account for the future effects of disability in fashioning an award, since those effects would not be reflected in the current award and the 1-year statute of limitations for modification after denial of compensation would foreclose responding to such effects on a wait-and-see basis as they might arise. On the other hand, trying to honor that mandate by basing a present award on a comprehensive prediction of an inherently uncertain future would, as we have seen, almost always result in present overcompensation or undercompensation. And it would be passing strange to credit Congress with the intent to guarantee fairness to employers and employees by a wait-and-see approach in most cases where future effects are imperfectly foreseeable, but to find no such intent in one class of cases, those in which wage-earning ability does not immediately decline. There is moreover an even more fundamental objection to Metropolitan’s proposed options. They implicitly reject the very conclusion required to make sense of the combined provisions limiting claims and mandating consideration of future effects: that a disability whose substantial effects are only potential is nonetheless a present disability, albeit a presently nominal one. It is, indeed, this realization that points toward a way to employ the wait-and-see approach to provide for the future effects of disability when capacity does not immediately decline. It is simply “reasonable” and “in the interest of justice” (to use the language of § 8(h)) to reflect merely nominal current disability with a correspondingly nominal award. Ordering nominal compensation holds open the possibility of a modified award if a future conjunction of injury, training, and employment opportunity should later depress the worker’s ability to earn wages below the preinjury level, turning the potential disability into an actual one. It allows full scope to the mandate to consider the future effects of disability, it promotes accuracy, it preserves administrative simplicity by obviating cumbersome enquiries relating to the entire range of possible future states of affairs, and it avoids imputing to Congress the unlikely intent to join a wait-and-see rule for most cases with a predict-the-future method when the disability results in no current decline in what the worker can earn. Our view, as it turns out, coincides on this point with the position taken by the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), who is charged with the administration of the Act, and who also construes the Act as permitting nominal compensation as a mechanism for taking future effects of disability into account when present wage-earning ability remains undiminished. See Brief for Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 12-21, 24-31. The Secretary of Labor has delegated the bulk of her statutory authority to administer and enforce the Act, including rulemaking power, to the Director, see Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U. S. 122, 125-126 (1995); Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 519 U. S. 248, 262-263 (1997), and the Director’s reasonable interpretation of the Act brings at least some added persuasive force to our conclusion, see, e. g., Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944) (giving weight to agency’s persuasive interpretation, even when agency lacks “power to control”); Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U. S. 337, 345-346 (1997). There is, of course, the question of how high the potential for disability need be to be recognized as nominal, but that is an issue not addressed by the parties, and it would be imprudent of us to address it now with any pretense of settling it for all time. Here it is enough to recall that in those cases where an injury immediately depresses ability to earn wages under present conditions, the payment of actual compensation holds open the option of modification under §22 even for future changes in condition whose probability of occurrence may well be remote at the time of the original award. Consistent application of the Act’s wait-and-see approach thus suggests that nominal compensation permitting future modification should not be limited to instances where a decline in capacity can be shown to a high degree of statistical likelihood. Those courts to have dealt with the matter explicitly have required a showing that there is a significant possibility that a worker’s wage-earning capacity will at some future point fall below his preinjury wages, see Hole v. Miami Shipyards Corp., 640 F. 2d 769, 772 (CA5 1981); Randall v. Comfort Control, Inc., 725 F. 2d 791, 800 (CADC 1984), and, in the absence of rulemaking by the agency specifying how substantial the possibility of future decline in capacity must be to justify a nominal award, we adopt this standard. We therefore hold that a worker is entitled to nominal compensation when his work-related injury has not diminished his present wage-earning capacity under current circumstances, but there is a significant potential that the injury will cause diminished capacity under future conditions. H-1 1 — H h — H The application of this legal standard to the case before us depends in part on how the burden of persuasion is allocated. Section 7(c) of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 556(d), which applies to adjudications under the Act, see Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U. S. 267, 270 (1994), places the burden of persuasion on the proponent of an order, id., at 272-281; when the evidence is evenly balanced, the proponent loses, see id., at 281. On the initial claim for nominal compensation under the Act, then, the employee has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he has been injured and that the odds are significant that his wage-earning capacity will fall below his preinjury wages at some point in the fixture. But when an employer seeks modification of previously awarded compensation, the employer is the proponent of the order with the burden of establishing a change in conditions justifying modification. In a case like this, where the prior award was based on a finding of economic harm resulting from an actual decline in wage-earning capacity at the time the award was entered, the employer satisfies this burden by showing that as a result of a change in capacity the employee’s wages have risen to a level at or above his preinjury earnings. Once the employer makes this showing, § 8(h) gives rise to the presumption that the employee’s wage-earning capacity is equal to his current, higher wage and, in the face of this presumption, the burden shifts back to the claimant to show that the likelihood of a future decline in capacity is sufficient for an award of nominal compensation. We emphasize that the probability of a future decline is a matter of proof; it is not to be assumed pro forma as an administrative convenience in the run of cases. In this case, the first award of compensation was based on the parties’ stipulation that Rambo suffered 22lk% permanent partial disability as a result of his injury, whereby Rambo established that the injury impaired his ability to undertake at least some types of previously available gainful labor and thus prevented him from earning as much as he had before his accident. Metropolitan sought termination of the award based solely on evidence, which the ALJ found persuasive, that Rambo is now able to earn market wages as a crané operator significantly greater than his preinjury earnings. There is therefore substantial evidence in the record supporting the ALJ’s decision to terminate actual (as opposed to nominal) benefits, since under present conditions Rambo’s capacity to earn wages is no longer depressed. But the ALJ failed to consider whether there is a significant possibility that Rambo’s wage-earning capacity will decline again in the future. Because there is no evidence in the record of the modification proceedings showing that Rambo’s physical condition has improved to the point of full recovery, the parties’ earlier stipulation of permanent partial disability at least raises the possibility that Rambo’s ability to earn will decline in the event he loses his current employment as a crane operator. The ALJ’s order altogether terminating benefits must therefore be vacated for failure to consider whether a future decline in Rambo’s earning capacity is sufficiently likely to justify nominal compensation. Since the ALJ is the factfinder under the Act, see §§ 21(b)(3), (c), 33 U. S. C. §§ 921(b)(3), (c), however, the Court of Appeals should have remanded to the agency for further findings of fact, see, e. g., Randall v. Comfort Control, Inc., 725 F. 2d, at 799-800 (remanding for consideration of nominal award), instead of directing entry of a nominal award based on its own appraisal of the evidence. We therefore vacate the Ninth Circuit’s judgment insofar as it directs entry of an award of nominal compensation, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Judge Reinhardt dissented in part on other grounds. 81 F. 3d, at 845. A different conclusion might, perhaps, be drawn from our observation-46 years ago in Pillsbury, 342 U. S., at 198-199, that the agency allowed claims to be filed within one year of injury but before recovery for present disability could be had. If that practice were assumed to be authorized by the Act, an injured worker who anticipated future loss of earning capacity could file a claim within the 1-year period permitted by § 13(a) yet defer litigation of the claim indefinitely until a capacity loss manifested itself, thereby undercutting our inference from the limitations provision that present disability must be conceived as including the potential for future decline in capacity. But it seems unlikely that when Congress enacted § 13(a) it intended workers to be able to file claims before they could establish all the elements entitling them to compensation. Moreover, while the practical effect of permitting protective filings and indefinitely deferring adjudication is in one respect the same as awarding nominal compensation when there is a significant possibility of future capacity loss, in that both approaches hold open the possibility of compensating a worker when the potential future economic effects of his injury actually appear, the former approach, unlike the latter, has the defect of putting off the adjudication of every element of the worker’s claim, including such matters as the work-related nature of the injury, until long after the evidence grows stale. We therefore think that the inference we draw from the limitations provision is the better one. As we noted in Rambo I, however, not every fluctuation in actual wages is a ground for modification, but only those shifts reflecting a change in the worker’s underlying capacity, see 515 U. S., at 300-301, such as a change in physical condition, skill level, or the availability of suitable jobs. “There may be cases raising difficult questions as to what constitutes a change in wage-earning capacity, but we need not address them here.” Ibid. In liberally permitting modification, the Act resembles virtually all other workers’ compensation schemes. See 3 A. Larson & L. Larson, Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 81.10, p. 15-1045 (1996). “[I]t is one of the main advantages of the reopening device [in workers’ compensation schemes] that it permits a commission to make the best estimate of disability it can at the time of the original award, although at that moment it may be impossible to predict the extent of future disability, without having to worry about being forever bound by the first appraisal.” Id., § 81.31(a), at 15-1127 to 15-1132 (footnotes omitted). The need for finality in workers’ compensation awards is further reduced because compensation is paid periodically over the life of the disability, rather than in a lump sum, see §§ 14(a), (b), 33 U. S. C. §§ 914(a), (b) (providing for periodic payment of compensation). Thus, modifying a worker’s compensation award generally affects future payments only, rather than retroactively adjusting a prior lump-sum payment. “Under the typical award in the form of periodic payments..., the objectives of [workers’ compensation] legislation are best accomplished if the commission can increase, decrease, revive, or terminate payments to correspond to a claimant’s changed condition,” subject, under most such laws, to certain time limitations. 3 Larson, Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 81.10, at 15-1045; id., § 81.21, at 15-1046 to 15-1047. As a simplified example of the sort of calculation that would be required under this approach, a factfinder might decide in the present case that Rambo has a 75% chance of keeping work as a crane operator with annual earnings of $60,000, and a 25% chance of being laid off from that job and remaining unemployed with no income because his injuries would prevent him from performing more strenuous work, for a weighted average future wage-earning capacity of $45,000. (($60,000X.75) + ($0x.25) = $45,000.) Of course, even if the factfinder somehow got the probabilities and earnings for each possible future state right, the weighted average future capacity would rarely correspond to actual developments. In our hypothetical, Rambo’s actual future capacity would be $15,000 a year more than his predicted capacity if he kept his job as a crane operator, and $45,000 less if he lost that job and found no other. Thus, if a compensation award were based on the weighted average, Rambo would necessarily end up either overcompensated or undercompensated, even though the Act might meet its objectives for the system as a whole. The one possible escape from this conclusion rests on an implausible reading of the Act. A claimant could, arguably, preserve a right to compensation in the future by reapplying within the 1-year period and successively each year thereafter. See § 22, 33 U. S. C. § 922 (permitting modification “at any time prior to one year after the rejection of a claim”). But this would be a strange way to administer the Act, for its very premise is that a claimant would repeatedly file reapplications knowing his disability to be without present effect and (on Metropolitan’s theory) himself without any good-faith claim to the present compensation sought. The legislative history to the 1938 amendments to the Act, which added § 8(h), indicates that Congress understood that the reference to future effects in the new subsection would interact with § 22 by allowing compensation for permanent partial disability for employees whose job opportunities are narrowed by injury but whose wages have not declined: “[Section 8(h)] provides for consideration of the effects of an injury... upon the employee’s future ability to earn.... Often an employee returns to work earning for the time being the same wages as he earned prior to injury, although still in a disabled condition and with his opportunity to secure gainful employment definitely limited.... It is clear that in such a ease the employee’s ability to compete in the labor market has been definitely affected; and, though at present the employee is paid his former full-time earnings, he suffers permanent partial disability which should be compensable under the... Act.... “In a case such as that..., an unscrupulous employer might with profit to himself continue the original wages... until the... right of review of the case (sec. 22) had run,... thus defeating] the beneficent provisions of the..: Act.” H. R. Rep. No. 1945, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 5-6 (1938); S. Rep. No. 1988, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 1 (1938). See Walters v. Metropolitan Ed. Enterprises, Inc., 519 U. S. 202, 208, 210-211 (1997) (weighing administrative simplicity in favor of permissible construction of statute). The OWCP Director argues that when the employee has the burden of persuasion, the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA’s) preponderance of the evidence standard (see infra, at 139) requires him to show that an injury-related future decline in wages is more likely than not to occur. Brief for Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 22-23. The Director’s position confuses the degree of certainty needed to find a fact or element under the preponderance standard with the fact or element to be so established, which in this case is the statistical odds that wage-earning capacity will decline in the future. “The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence... simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence before [he] may find in favor of the party who has the burden to persuade the [judge] of the fact’s existence.” Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal., 508 U. S. 602, 622 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the preponderance standard goes to how convincing the evidence in favor of a fact must be in comparison with the evidence against it before that fact may be found, but does not determine what facts must be proven as a substantive part of a claim or defense. See Greenwich Collieries v. Director, OWCP, 990 F. 2d 730, 736 (CA3 1993) (“A preponderance of the evidence is... [e]videnee which is... more convincing than the evidence... offered in opposition to it...” (internal quotation marks omitted)), Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. The question presented by this case is whether a federal district judge in an action brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act is divested of all discretion to deny a § 1404 (a) transfer motion, when a suit upon the same cause of action, earlier brought in a state court in the same city, was dismissed by the state court on the ground of forum non conveniens. Jack Filbrun commenced a Federal Employers’ Liability Act suit for personal injuries against the respondent railroad in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. On the respondent’s motion the state court dismissed the action on the ground of jorum non conveniens. Filbrun did not appeal. Instead, he filed a complaint grounded on the same cause of action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting in Chicago. The respondent filed a motion pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1404 (a), requesting that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting in Grand Rapids. The district judge denied the motion, and the respondent sought mandamus from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to compel the judge to order the transfer. On rehearing, the Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, vacated a previous judgment refusing mandamus, and issued a writ directing the transfer. 307 F. 2d 924. We granted certiorari, 371 U. S. 946, to review the action of the Court of Appeals. We reverse the judgment for the reasons stated below. Under Illinois law a state court’s determination to dismiss a case on the ground of jorum non conveniens requires consideration of similar factors — convenience of the parties and of witnesses and the interests of justice— to those to be considered by a federal court in applying § 1404 (a). The Court of Appeals accordingly reasoned that every point necessary to be passed upon by the federal district judge on respondent’s § 1404 (a) transfer motion had already been adjudicated adversely to the plaintiff in the state court, and concluded that “the district court had no discretion but to recognize the authoritative value of the state court’s ruling, made in a case commenced there by plaintiff.” 307 F. 2d, at 926. The discretionary determinations of both the state and federal courts in this case required, to be sure, evaluations of similar, but by no means identical, objective criteria. However, since the material facts underlying the application of these criteria in each forum were different in several respects, principles of res judicata are not applicable to the situation here presented. Thus, for example, in determining that Cook County was an inconvenient forum, the state court in this case could appropriately consider the availability of a state forum at Ludington, Michigan, where Filbrun’s alleged injury had occurred. But since there is no federal court in Ludington, the federal district judge in making his determination was limited to consideration of the alternative of a trial in the federal court in Grand Rapids, a city some 60 miles from Ludington. Obviously, the question whether the convenience of the parties and of the witnesses would be better served by a trial in a state court in Ludington is not the same question as whether those interests would be better served by a trial in a federal court in Grand Rapids. Similarly, a trial judge weighing the interests of justice could legitimately consider the condition of his court’s docket an important factor. While docket congestion is a problem facing all trial courts in large metropolitan areas, there is nothing to show that the problem in the federal court in Chicago is identical in either nature or quantity to the problem in the Cook County court system. These considerations no more than illustrate the many variables which might affect the exercise of discretion by a state court, as contrasted to a federal court, in any given case. Since different factual considerations may be involved in each court’s determination, we hold that a prior state court dismissal on the ground of jorum non con- veniens can never serve to divest a federal district judge of the discretionary power vested in him by Congress to rule upon a motion to transfer under § 1404 (a). In its original opinion in this case, the Court of Appeals found that there had been no abuse of discretion by the district judge in denying the motion for transfer. We do not read the opinion on rehearing as having disturbed that finding, but only as having determined that the district judge had been divested of power to exercise his discretion at all — a determination we have now found to be erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. It is so ordered. 28 U. S. C. § 1404 (a) provides: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” In addition, the state court was required to determine whether plaintiff's selection of that court was dictated by a desire to vex and harass the defendant. Cotton v. L. & N. R. Co., 14 Ill. 2d 144, 174, 152 N. E. 2d 385, 400. The Supreme Court of Illinois has observed that a serious court congestion problem exists in the Cook County courts. 14 Ill. 2d, at 171, 152 N. E. 2d, at 398. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellants are residents of Maine who were employed in New Hampshire during the 1970 tax year and as such were subject to the New Hampshire Commuters Income Tax. On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, they petitioned the New Hampshire Superior Court for a declaration that the tax violates the Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitutions of New Hampshire and of the United States. The cause was transferred directly to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which upheld the tax. 114 N. H. 137, 316 A. 2d 165 (1974). We noted probable jurisdiction of the federal constitutional claims, 419 U. S. 822 (1974), and on the basis of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, we now reverse. I The New Hampshire Commuters Income Tax imposes a tax on nonresidents' New Hampshire-derived income in excess of 12,00o. The tax rate is 4% except that if the nonresident taxpayer’s State of residence would impose a lesser tax had the income been earned in that State, the New Hampshire tax is reduced to the amount of the tax that the State of residence would impose. Employers are required to withhold 4% of the nonresident’s income, however, even if his home State would tax him at less than the full 4%. Any excess tax withheld is refunded to the nonresident upon his filing a New Hampshire tax return after the close of the tax year showing that he is entitled to be taxed at a rate less than 4%. The Commuters Income Tax initially imposes a tax of 4% as well on the income earned by New Hampshire residents outside the State. It then exempts such income from the tax, however: (1) if it is taxed by the State from which it is derived; (2) if it is exempted from taxation by the State from which it is derived; or (3) if the State from which it is derived does not tax such income. The effect of these imposition and exemption features is that no resident of New Hampshire is taxed on his out-of-state income. Nor is the domestic earned income of New Hampshire residents taxed. In effect, then, the State taxes only the incomes of nonresidents working in New Hampshire; it is on the basis of this disparate treatment of residents and nonresidents that appellants challenge New Hampshire’s right to tax their income from employment in that State. II The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, provides: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” The Clause thus establishes a norm of comity without specifying the particular subjects as to which citizens of one State coming within the jurisdiction of another are guaranteed equality of treatment. The origins of the Clause do reveal, however, the concerns of central import to the Framers. During the preconstitu-tional period, the practice of some States denying to out-landers the treatment that its citizens demanded for themselves was widespread. The fourth of the Articles of Confederation was intended to arrest this centrifugal tendency with some particularity. It provided: “The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively.” The discriminations at which this Clause was aimed were by no means eradicated during the short life of the Confederation, and the provision was carried over into the comity article of the Constitution in briefer form but with no change of substance or intent, unless it was to strengthen the force of the Clause in fashioning a single nation. Thus, in the first, and long the leading, explication of the Clause, Mr. Justice Washington, sitting as Circuit Justice, deemed the fundamental privileges and immunities protected by the Clause to be essentially coextensive with those calculated to achieve the purpose of forming a more perfect Union, including “an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state.” Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 552 (No. 3,230) (CCED Pa. 1825). In resolving constitutional challenges to state tax measures this Court has made it clear that “in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest' freedom in classification.” Madden v. Ken tucky, 309 U. S. 83, 88 (1940). See Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356 (1973). Our review of tax classifications has generally been concomitantly narrow, therefore, to fit the broad discretion vested in the state legislatures. When a tax measure is challenged as an undue burden on an activity granted special constitutional recognition, however, the appropriate degree of inquiry is that necessary to protect the competing constitutional value from erosion. See id., at 359. This consideration applies equally to the protection of individual liberties, see Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 (1936), and to the maintenance of our constitutional federalism. See Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Une Co. v. Calvert, 347 U. S. 157, 164 (1954). The Privileges and Immunities Clause, by making noncitizenship or nonresidence an improper basis for locating a special burden, implicates not only the individual’s right to nondiscriminatory treatment but also, perhaps more so, the structural balance essential to the concept of federalism. Since nonresidents are not represented in the taxing State’s legislative halls, cf. Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522, 532-533 (1959) (Brennan, J., concurring), judicial acquiescence in taxation schemes that burden them particularly would remit them to such redress as they could secure through their own State; but “to prevent [retaliation] was one of the chief ends sought to be accomplished by the adoption of the Constitution.” Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 252 U. S. 60, 82 (1920). Our prior cases, therefore, reflect an appropriately heightened concern for the integrity of the Privileges and Immunities Clause by erecting a standard of review substantially more rigorous than that applied to state tax distinctions among, say, forms of business organizations or different trades and professions. The first such case was Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 (1871), challenging a statute under which nonresidents were required to pay $300 per year for a license to trade in goods not manufactured in Maryland, while resident traders paid a fee varying from $12 to $150, depending upon the value of their inventory. The State attempted to justify this disparity as a response to the practice of “runners” from industrial States selling by sample in Maryland, free from local taxation and other overhead expenses incurred by resident merchants. It portrayed the fee as a “tax upon a particular business or trade, carried on in a particular mode,” rather than a discrimination against traders from other States. Although the tax may not have been “palpably arbitrary,” see Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, supra, at 530, the discrimination could not be denied and the Court held that it violated the guarantee of the Privileges and Immunities Clause against “being subjected to any higher tax or excise than that exacted by law of . . . permanent residents.” In Travellers’ Insurance Co. v. Connecticut, 185 U. S. 364 (1902), the Court considered a tax laid on the value of stock in local insurance corporations. The shares of nonresident stockholders were assessed at their market value, while those owned by residents were assessed at market value less the proportionate value of all real estate held by the corporation and on which it had already paid a local property tax. In analyzing the apparent discrimination thus worked against nonresidents, the Court took account of the overall distribution of the tax burden between resident and nonresident stockholders. Finding that nonresidents paid no local property taxes, while residents paid those taxes at an average rate approximating or exceeding the rate imposed by the State on nonresidents’ stock, the Court upheld the scheme. While more precise equality between the two classes could have been obtained, it was “enough that the State has secured a reasonably fair distribution of burdens, and that no intentional discrimination has been made against non-residents.” Their contribution to state and local property tax revenues, that is, was no more than the ratable share of their property within the State. The principles of Ward and Travellers’ were applied to taxes on nonresidents’ local incomes in Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37 (1920), and Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., supra. Shaffer upheld the Oklahoma tax on income derived from local property and business by a nonresident where the State also taxed the income — from wherever derived — of its own citizens. Putting aside “theoretical distinctions” and looking to “the practical effect and operation” of the scheme, the nonresident was not treated more onerously than the resident in any particular, and in fact was called upon to make no more than his ratable contribution to the support of the state government. The New York tax on residents’ and nonresidents’ income at issue in Travis, by contrast, could not be sustained when its actual effect was considered. The tax there granted personal exemptions to each resident taxpayer for himself and each dependent, but it made no similar provision for nonresidents. The disparity could not be “deemed to be counterbalanced” by an exemption for nonresidents’ interest and dividend income because it was not likely “to benefit non-residents to a degree corresponding to the discrimination against them.” Looking to “the concrete, the particular incidence” of the tax, therefore, the Court said of the many New Jersey and Connecticut residents who worked in New York: “They pursue their several occupations side by side with residents of the State of New York — in effect competing with them as to wages, salaries, and other terms of employment. Whether they must pay a tax upon the first $1,000 or $2,000 of income, while their associates and competitors who reside in New York do not, makes a substantial difference. . . . This is not a case of occasional or accidental inequality due to circumstances personal to the taxpayer . .. but a general rule, operating to the disadvantage of all non-residents . . . and favoring all residents . . . .” 252 U. S., at 80-81 (citations omitted). Ill Against this background establishing a rule of substantial equality of treatment for the citizens of the taxing State and nonresident taxpayers, the New Hampshire Commuters Income Tax cannot be sustained. The overwhelming fact, as the State concedes, is that the tax falls exclusively on the income of nonresidents; and it is not offset even approximately by other taxes imposed upon residents alone. Rather, the argument advanced in favor of the tax is that the ultimate burden it imposes is “not more onerous in effect,” Shaffer v. Carter, supra, on nonresidents because their total state tax liability is unchanged once the tax credit they receive from their State of residence is taken into account. See n. 4, supra. While this argument has an initial appeal, it cannot be squared with the underlying policy of comity to which the Privileges and Immunities Clause commits us. According to the State's theory of the case, the only practical effect of the tax is to divert to New Hampshire tax revenues that would otherwise be paid to Maine, an effect entirely within Maine’s power to terminate by repeal of its credit provision for income taxes paid to another State. The Maine Legislature could do this, presumably, by amending the provision so as to deny a credit for taxes paid to New Hampshire while retaining it for the other 48 States. Putting aside the acceptability of such a scheme, and the relevance of any increase in appellants’ home state taxes that the diversionary effect is said to have, we do not think the possibility that Maine could shield its residents from New Hampshire’s tax cures the constitutional defect of the discrimination in that tax. In fact, it compounds it. For New Hampshire in effect invites appellants to induce their representatives, if they can, to retaliate against it. A similar, though much less disruptive, invitation was extended by New York in support of the discriminatory personal exemption at issue in Travis. The statute granted the nonresident a credit for taxes paid to his State of residence on New York-derived income only if that State granted a substantially similar credit to New York residents subject to its income tax. New York contended that it thus “looked forward to the speedy adoption of an income tax by the adjoining States,” which would eliminate the discrimination “by providing similar exemptions similarly conditioned.” To this the Court responded in terms fully applicable to the present case. Referring to the anticipated legislative response of the neighboring States, it stated: Nor, we may add, can the constitutionality of one State's statutes affecting nonresidents depend upon the present configuration of the statutes of another State. “This, however, is wholly speculative; New York has no authority to legislate for the adjoining States; and we must pass upon its statute with respect to its effect and operation in the existing situation. ... A State may not barter away the right, conferred upon its citizens by the Constitution of the United States, to enjoy the privileges and immunities of citizens when they go into other States. Nor can discrimination be corrected by retaliation; to prevent this was one of the chief ends sought to be accomplished by the adoption of the Constitution.” 252 U. S., at 82. Since we dispose of this case under Art. IV, § 2, of the Constitution, we have no occasion to address the equal protection arguments directed at the disparate treatment of residents and nonresidents and at that feature of the statute that causes the rate of taxation imposed upon nonresidents to vary among them depending upon the rate established by their State of residence. Reversed. Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §77-B:2 II (1971) provides: “A tax is hereby imposed upon every taxable nonresident, which shall be levied, collected and paid annually at the rate of four percent of their New Hampshire derived income . . . less an exemption of two thousand dollars; provided, however, that if the tax hereby imposed exceeds the tax which would be imposed upon such income by the state of residence of the taxpayer, if such income were earned in such state, the tax hereby imposed shall be reduced to equal the tax which would be imposed by such other state.” N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §77-B:2 I (1971) provides: “A tax is hereby imposed upon every resident of the state, which shall be levied, collected and paid annually at the rate of four percent of their income which is derived outside the state of New Hampshire . . . ; provided, however, that if such income shall be subject to a tax in the state in which it is derived, such tax shall constitute full satisfaction of the tax hereby imposed; and provided further, that if such income is exempt from taxation because of statutory or constitutional provisions in the state in which it is derived, or because the state in which it is derived does not impose an income tax on such income, it shall be exempt from taxation under this paragraph.” New Hampshire residents pay a 4.5% tax on interest (other than interest on notes and bonds of the State and on bank deposits) and dividends (other than cash dividends on stock in national banks and New Hampshire banks and thrift institutions) in excess of $600. N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§77:1-5 (1971). Residents also pay a $10 annual “resident tax” for the use of their town or city of residence. N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 72:1, 5-a (Supp. 1973). Other state taxes, such as those on business profits, real estate transfers, and property, are paid by residents and nonresidents alike. State income tax revenues from the tax on residents’ unearned income in fiscal year 1970 were $3,462,000. In fiscal year 1971, the first in which the State taxed the earned income of nonresidents, total income tax revenues rose to $5,238,000. U. S-. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, State Tax Collections in 1970 (Series GE70 No. 1) and in 1971 (Series GF71 No. 1), p. 26. Appellees challenge appellants’ standing to maintain this action on the theory that their economic position was unchanged despite the imposition of the Commuters Income Tax because they received an offsetting credit under the tax laws of Maine, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 36, §5127 (Supp. 1973), against income taxes owing to that State; the appellants’ total tax liability, that is, was unaffected. We think the question is covered, however, by the holding of Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522 (1959). In addition, appellants are affected by the requirements that they file a New Hampshire tax return and that their employers withhold 4% of their earnings; since the appellees do not suggest that appellants are subject to the tax at the 4% rate, at the very least the withholding requirement deprives them of the use value of the excess withheld over their ultimate tax liability, if any. These effects may not be substantial, but they establish appellants’ status as parties “adversely affected” by the State’s tax laws, giving them “a direct stake in the outcome” of this litigation. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740 (1972). James Madison, in a commentary on the plan of union proposed by William Paterson of New Jersey, wrote: “Will it prevent trespasses of the States on each other? Of these enough has been already seen. He instanced Acts of Yirga. & Maryland which give a preference to their own citizens in cases where the Citizens [of other States] are entitled to equality of privileges by the Articles of Confederation.” 1 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention 317 (1911). Charles Pinckney, who drafted the shorter version now found in Art. IV, §2, cl. 1, see 37 Annals of Cong. 1129 (1821), assured the Convention that “[t]he 4th article, respecting the extending the rights of the Citizens of each State, throughout the United States [etc.] is formed exactly upon the principles of the 4th article of the present Confederation . . . .” 3 M. Farrand, supra, at 112. For an explanation of the deletion of certain phrases found in Art. IV of the Confederation in light of the Fugitive Slave and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution, see Lemmon v. People, 20 N. Y. 562, 627 (1860) (opinion of Wright, J.). Id., at 607 (Denio, J.); see Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (1869). For purposes of analyzing a taxing scheme under the Privileges and Immunities Clause the terms “citizen” and “resident” are essentially interchangeable. Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 252 U. S. 60, 79 (1920) (“a general taxing scheme ... if it discriminates against all non-residents, has the necessary effect of including in the discrimination those who are citizens of other States”); Smith v. Loughman, 245 N. Y. 486, 492, 157 N. E. 753, 755, cert. denied, 275 U. S. 560 (1927); see Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385, 397 (1948). Accord, Toomer v. Witsell, supra, at 396, where the Court held invalid another disparate licensing-fee system, citing Ward v. Maryland for the proposition that “it was long ago decided that one of the privileges which the clause guarantees to citizens of State A is that of doing business in State B on terms of substantial equality with the citizens of that State.” (Emphasis added.) The $10 annual resident tax and the tax on certain unearned income in excess of $600 would rarely equal, much less exceed, the 4% tax on nonresidents’ incomes over $2,000. Appellant Logan, for example, with $33,000 of New Hampshire-derived income, paid $252 in taxes to that State; a resident with the same earned income would have paid only the $10 resident tax. Against this disparity and the disparities among nonresidents’ tax rates depending on their State of residence, we find no support in the record for the assertion of the court below that the Commuters Income Tax creates no more than a “practical equality” between residents and nonresidents when the taxes paid only by residents are taken into account. “[Something more is required than bald assertion” — by the state court or by counsel here — to establish the validity of a taxing statute that on its face discriminates against nonresidents. Mvllaney v. Anderson, 342 U. S. 415, 418 (1952). The States of Maine and Vermont, amici curiae, point out that at least $400,000 was diverted from Maine to New Hampshire by reason of the challenged tax and Maine’s tax credit in 1971, and that the average Maine taxpayer, appellants included, thereby bore an additional burden of 40 cents in Maine taxes. While the inference is strong, we deem the present record insufficient to demonstrate that Maine taxes were actually higher than they otherwise would have been but for this revenue loss. Neither Travis nor the present case should be taken in any way to denigrate the value of reciprocity in such matters. The evil at which they are aimed is the unilateral imposition of a disadvantage upon nonresidents, not reciprocally favorable treatment of nonresidents by States that coordinate their tax laws. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. The basic question presented is whether one of two Maryland taxes imposed on all common carriers transporting passengers over Maryland roads can be exacted from interstate carriers consistently with the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. A subsidiary contention impliedly raised by carrier appellants here is that the tax is invalid as applied to them. The Supreme Court of Maryland upheld the tax, -Md. -, 64 A. 2d 284. The case is here on appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). The tax challenged by appellants is prescribed by § 25A of Art. 66% of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1947 Cum. Supp. In the language of appellants that section imposes “a tax of 2% upon the fair market value of motor vehicles used in interstate commerce as a condition precedent to the issuance of certificates of title thereto (the issuance of such certificates being a further condition precedent to the registration and operation of such vehicles in,, the State of Maryland) . ...” First. Appellants do not contend that as interstate carriers they are wholly exempt from state taxation. This Court and others have consistently upheld taxes on interstate carriers to compensate a state fairly for the privilege of using its roads or for the cost of administering state traffic regulations. Courts have invoked the commerce clause to invalidate state taxes on interstate carriers only upon finding that: (1) the tax discriminated against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce; (2) the tax was imposed on the privilege of doing an interstate business as distinguished from a tax exacting contributions for road construction and maintenance or for administration of road laws; or (3) the amount of the tax exceeded fair compensation to the state. This Maryland tax applies to interstate and intrastate commerce without discrimination. The tax proceeds are used by Maryland wholly for road purposes, and the State Supreme Court held that the tax was imposed for the privilege of road use. And neither in the Maryland courts nor here have appellants specifically charged that the amount of taxes imposed on carriers will always be in excess of fair compensation. Their challenge is leveled against the formula, not the amount. The taxes upheld have taken many forms. Examples are taxes based on mileage, chassis weight, tonnage-capacity, or horsepower, singly or in combination — a list which does not begin to exhaust the innumerable factors bearing on the fairness of compensation by each carrier to a state. The difficulty in gearing taxes to these factors was recognized by this Court as early as Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, 168, where it said that so long as fees are reasonable in amount “it is clearly within the discretion of the State to determine whether the compensation for the use of its highways by automobiles shall be determined by way of a fee, payable annually or semiannually, or by a toll based on mileage or otherwise.” Later, in rejecting contentions that the validity of taxes must be determined by formula rather than result, the Court held that a flat fee on the privilege of using state highways “is not a forbidden burden on interstate commerce” unless “unreasonable in amount.” Morf v. Bingaman, 298 U. S. 407, 412. See also Aero Transit Co. v. Comm’rs, 332 U. S. 495, and annotation thereto, 92 L. Ed. 109, 119-120. Yet clearly a flat fee is not geared to mileage, weight or any other factor relevant in considering the fairness of compensation for road use. Thus, unless we are to depart from prior decisions, the Maryland tax based on the cost of the vehicles should be judged by its result, not its formula, and must stand unless proven to be unreasonable in amount for the privilege granted. Appellants, however, in effect urge that we make an exception to the general rule and strike down this tax formula regardless of whether the amount of the tax is within the limits of fair compensation. No tax precisely like this has previously been before us. Appellants argue that a tax on vehicle value should be forbidden by the commerce clause because it varies for each carrier without relation to road use. In support of this contention, they point to the facts shown in this record. Each of the appellant carriers, according to admitted allegations, bought a new passenger-carrying vehicle and declared a purpose to use its vehicle on one of its Maryland routes. The Maryland portions of these three routes are 9, 41 and 64 miles respectively. The state taxes computed on the fair market value of each vehicle are $505.17, $580 and $372.55, respectively. This showing does indicate that the title tax falls short of achieving uniformity among carriers in relation to road use. Moreover, as argued, it may well be unwise to subject carriers to the monetary temptation incident to the application of a tax that hits a carrier only when it purchases a bus. But that is not our issue. And it should be noted that the total charge of Maryland for the privilege of using its roads will not show the same disparity among carriers. For Maryland also charges a mileage tax, and this tax added to the title tax is what Maryland actually charges for its road privileges. Thus the total charge as among carriers does vary substantially with the mileage traveled. We recognize that in the absence of congressional action this Court has prescribed the rules which determine the power of states to tax interstate traffic, and therefore should alter these rules if necessary to protect interstate commerce from obstructive barriers. But with full appreciation of congenital infirmities of the Maryland formula — and indeed of any formula in this field — as well as of our present rules to test its validity, we are by no means sure that the remedy suggested by appellants would not bring about greater ills. Complete fairness would require that a state tax formula vary with every factor affecting appropriate compensation for road use. These factors, like those relevant in considering the constitutionality of other state taxes, are so countless that we must be content with “rough approximation rather than precision.” Harvester Co. v. Evatt, 329 U. S. 416, 422-423. Each additional factor adds to administrative burdens of enforcement, which fall alike on taxpayers and government. We have recognized that such burdens may be sufficient to justify states in ignoring even such a key factor as mileage, although the result may be a tax which on its face appears to bear with unequal weight upon different carriers. Aero Transit Co. v. Georgia Comm’n, 295 U. S. 285, 289. Upon this type of reasoning rests our general rule that taxes like that of Maryland here are valid unless the amount is shown to be in excess of fair compensation for the privilege of using state roads. Our adherence to existing rules does not mean that any group of carriers is remediless if the total Maryland taxes are out of line with fair compensation due to Maryland. Under the rules we have previously prescribed, such carriers may challenge the taxes as applied, and upon proper proof obtain a judicial declaration of their invalidity as applied. Ingels v. Morf, 300 U. S. 290. Cf. Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583. If a new rule prohibiting taxes measured by vehicle value is to be declared, we think Congress should do it. We decline to hold that this Maryland title tax law is wholly invalid however applied. Second. Little need be said as to the faint contention here that the taxes actually levied against appellants are in excess of a fair compensation for the privilege of using Maryland roads. While the State Supreme Court did pass on this question, holding that appellants had failed to prove excessiveness, the assignments of error here did not specifically mention such a challenge. That court satisfactorily disposed of any question of the size of the fees in relationship to the road privileges granted. The burden of proof in this respect is on a carrier who challenges a state law. Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583, 598-600. We agree with the Supreme Court of Maryland that here there is a complete and utter lack of proof sufficient to invalidate the state law on this ground. See Dixie Ohio Co. v. Commission, 306 U. S. 72, 77-78. Affirmed. Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. Justice Frankfurter, whom Mr. Justice Jackson joins, dissenting. Once more we are called upon to subject a State tax on interstate motor traffic to the scrutiny which the Commerce Clause requires so that interstate commerce may enjoy freedom from State taxation outside of those narrow limits within which States are free to burden such commerce. The essential facts are easily stated. By various provisions of Maryland law, an interstate motor carrier may not operate its vehicles within the State until it has registered them. As a prerequisite to registration the carrier must obtain a certificate of title for each vehicle. Section 25A of Article 66% of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1947 Cum. Supp., imposes a so-called titling tax of 2% of the “fair market value” of each motor vehicle “for the issuance of every original certificate of title . . . and . . . every subsequent certificate of title ... in the case of sales or resales . ...” Thus, the tax does not strike at periodic intervals but only when a purchase has been made of a motor vehicle which is to be operated in whole or part on Maryland highways, whether the vehicle be new or old. The entire proceeds of the tax are devoted to road purposes. Appellants operate interstate bus lines, in part over Maryland roads. Each purchased a bus, but refused to pay the tax on the ground that § 25A was invalid under the Commerce Clause as applied to interstate carriers. They were denied certificates of title by the State and thereupon filed petitions for mandamus to secure them. The Maryland Court of Appeals sustained the levy, 64 A. 2d 284, and the case is here on appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). I. Since “a State may not lay a tax on the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce,” the titling tax can be sustained only if it be a fair imposition for the use of highways constructed and maintained by Maryland or for the cost of traffic regulation. Interstate Transit, Inc. v. Lindsey, 283 U. S. 183, 185; see also Dixie Ohio Express Co. v. State Revenue Comm’n, 306 U. S. 72, 76. The right of a State to levy such a compensatory tax also as to interstate commerce for special benefits is well settled. The subjection of interstate motor traffic to such State power is only a particular application of a general principle. Clyde Mallory Lines v. Alabama, 296 U. S. 261, 267-68, and cases cited. But whether the tax now under review comes within the scope of the principle must be tested by the considerations which have guided prior adjudication. (All of the cases in which this Court has dealt with our specific problem are listed, and their relevant facts described, in an Appendix to this opinion, post, p. 561.) If a new principle is to be announced, it, too, must stand the test of reason in relation to the Commerce Clause. Since the levy is upon commerce exclusively interstate, and therefore inevitably an inroad upon its normal freedom from State burdens, Maryland must justify it as a means of securing compensation for the road use which the State affords and for which it may exact a return. Interstate Transit, Inc. v. Lindsey, 283 U. S. 183. This requirement is not a close accounting responsibility, however, for the States are free to exercise a loose judgment in fixing a quid pro quo. Thus, tax formulas dependent on actual use of the State’s highways satisfy the constitutional test, without more, since they reflect an obvious relationship between what is demanded and what is given by the State. Taxes based on miles or ton-miles have encountered no difficulty here. Interstate Busses Corp. v. Blodgett, 276 U. S. 245; Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, 286 U. S. 352. Again, if the State makes clear by disposition of the tax proceeds or by statutory declaration that the tax is levied to secure compensation for road use, the tax classification will be sustained if it may fairly be attributed to the privilege of road use, as distinguished from actual use. Compare Interstate Transit, Inc. v. Lindsey, 283 U. S. 183 (no allocation of proceeds) with Clark v. Poor, 274 U. S. 554 (allocation); see Appendix, post, p. 561. Thus, mileage may be ignored and an annual tax may be based on horsepower, Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610, and Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160; on carrying capacity, Clark v. Poor, 274 U. S. 554, and Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U. S. 169; and on manufacturer’s rated capacity, Dixie Ohio Express Co. v. State Revenue Comm’n, 306 U. S. 72. And the Court has upheld flat fees imposed without regard to size or weight factors. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Public Service Comm’n, 295 U. S. 285; Morf v. Bingaman, 298 U. S. 407; Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583; Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of Railroad Comm’rs, 332 U. S. 495. From this body of decisions, the Court now extracts the principle that, so long as a tax is levied for highway purposes and does not formally discriminate against interstate commerce, it cannot be attacked for its tax formula or classification, but only for “excessiveness” of amount. Such a view collides with the guiding limitation upon State power announced in Interstate Transit, Inc. v. Lindsey, 283 U. S. 183, 186, that a tax intended to compensate for road use “will be sustained unless the taxpayer shows that it bears no reasonable relation to the privilege of using the highways or is discriminatory.” This wary qualification was formulated for the Court by Mr. Justice Brandéis, who was most alert not to deny to States the right to make interstate commerce pay its way. Likewise, today’s opinion disregards McCarroll v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., 309 U. S. 176, holding a tax invalid simply because the standard of measurement was found to be unrelated to what the State gave. In that case, the tax was declared to be imposed upon the privilege of highway use and the proceeds were allocated, and, as here, it was sought to justify the tax as levied for that purpose. There was no showing that the State was collecting sums in excess of its needs or that the carrier was being subjected to severe economic strain. The defect lay in the capricious tax formula. In no prior case has the Court upheld a tax formula bearing no reasonable relationship to the privilege of road use. No support to the result now reached is lent by the fact that State tax formulas need not be limited to factors reflecting actual road use, such as mileage, but may be measured by the privilege of highway use extended to all alike. In a case involving a flat tax characterized as “moderate,” the matter was illuminatingly put for the Court by Mr. Justice Cardozo: “There would be administrative difficulties in collecting on that basis [i. e., mileage]. The fee is for the privilege of a use as extensive as the carrier wills that it shall be. There is nothing unreasonable or oppressive in a burden so imposed. . . . One who receives a privilege without limit is not wronged by his own refusal to enjoy it as freely as he may.” Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Public Service Comm’n, 295-U. S. 285, 289. Systems of taxation need not achieve the ideal. But the fact that the Constitution does not demand pure reason and is satisfied by practical reason does not justify unreason. Though a State may levy a tax based upon the privilege granted, as distinguished from its exercise, this does not sanction a tax the measure of which has no reasonable relation to the privilege. Reason precludes the notion that a tax for a privilege may disregard the absence of a nexus between privilege and tax. Our decisions reflect that reason. A State naturally may deem factors of size or weight to be relevant. Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U. S. 169, 173. Since the relationship of these factors to highway construction and maintenance costs cannot be measured with even proximate accuracy, the States are not hobbled in exercising rough judgment in devising tax formulas, giving to size, weight and other relevant factors such respect as is fairly within the restraints of decency. Cf. Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583, 594. And a State, with an eye to the problems of tax administration, may also reasonably conclude that under some circumstances such factors are not sufficiently significant or material to call for insistence upon impractical details, and that a flat tax is proper. In the cases involving flat taxes, the Court carefully pointed out that the classification was reasonable on the facts before it. Morf v. Bingaman, 298 U. S. 407, 410; Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583, 600; Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of Railroad Comm’rs, 332 U. S. 495, 506. Maryland’s titling tax fails to meet the justifications that sustain a State’s power to levy a tax on what is exclusively the carrying on of interstate commerce. Giving the State court’s judgment every indulgence for supporting its validity, one cannot find any fair relationship between the tax and actual road use or the privilege of such use. The value of a vehicle is not a practical function of what the State affords. It has at best a most tenuous relationship to the privilege of using the roads, since differences in value are due to a vehicle’s appointments or its age or to other factors which have no bearing on highway use. Differences in the cost of vehicles based on such factors, reflecting in large measure the financial condition of owners or their investment policies, can hardly furnish a standard by which a return for road use may be measured. This irrelevance in the basis of the tax is reinforced by the irrelevance of its incidence. For the tax is exacted not only on the original purchase of the vehicle but upon its subsequent transfer to a new owner. If the tax be treated as one on the vehicle, then it is attributable not to the privilege of road use but to a shift in its ownership. If the tax is deemed to be upon the owner, then it depends not upon the privilege of road use but upon the frequency of turnover of his equipment. Unlike all the comparable taxes heretofore sustained, the Maryland tax is measured by considerations extraneous to the State’s right to impose it. The Court in effect concedes this, but proceeds on the theory that the basis of such a road tax need not be intrinsically reasonable. Validity is treated as a question of dollars and cents; only the amount of the tax may be questioned. It should occasion no surprise that such a test breaks wholly new ground. Amount has of course played a part in the total context of prior decisions and it raises issues to which I shall shortly advert. But a test of amount has never been regarded as in itself a substitute for a reasonable tax classification. While novelty of doctrine does not prove unconstitutionality, neither does it establish constitutionality. If no prior decision gives any warrant for determining the validity of a State tax on commerce going through it merely by the size of the financial burden which such a tax entails, the reason is obvious enough. It would cast what is surely not a judicial function upon this Court to decide how big an amount, abstractly considered, can economically be absorbed by a carrier engaged exclusively in interstate commerce as an exaction by each State through which the carrier passes. Contrariwise, it is within the competence of judges to determine the fair relevance of criteria in achieving allowable ends. How criteria work in specific cases involves familiar practicalities in the administration of law. No doubt difficulties are encountered by the States in formulating classifications for tax purposes which express the needed accommodation in our federalism between due regard for the special facilities afforded by States to interstate commerce for which they require compensation, and that freedom of commerce across State lines the desire for which was one of the propelling forces for the establishment of this nation and the benefits of which are one of its greatest sources of strength. Of course this Court must not unduly rein in States. Practical, not ideal, lines must be drawn, which means that within the broadest reach of policy relevant to the States’ basis of taxation a wide choice must be allowed to the States of possible taxes on motor vehicles traveling in interstate commerce. Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583. But simply because many tax formulas may be devised does not mean that any formula will do. Of course, the problem involves matters of degree. Drawing lines, recognition of differences of degree, is perhaps the chief characteristic of the process of constitutional adjudication. Difficulties in applying the test of reason do not justify abandonment of reason for the impossible task of deciding fiscal fairness to each individual carrier. II. Since the basis of its imposition is fatally defective, the Maryland tax cannot be saved by its amount. But quite apart from its formula, there are serious questions relating to the amount of this tax which the Court disregards. There is a show of fairness in the Court’s suggestion that the tax will be declared bad if the amount exacted exceeds “fair compensation” to the States. The term is not self-defining and no intimation is afforded regarding the standards by which excessiveness is to be determined. Reference is made to Ingels v. Morf, 300 U. S. 290. Presumably, therefore, the Court is still committed to the view that a tax may not be so high that amounts collected by the State are clearly in excess of the costs of the special facilities or regulations for which the tax is professedly levied. Like other forms of interstate commerce, motor carriers should be required to contribute their fair share, broadly conceived, of the State’s distinctive contribution for the carrying on of such commerce. Under the guise of a special compensatory tax, however, a State may not exact more than the value of the services to be compensated. There is no showing that the tax levied here is excessive in this sense. But for the proper maintenance of our federal system, and more particularly for the rigorous safeguarding of the national interests in interstate commerce, it is not sufficient that a State exact no more than the value of what it gives — with all the elusiveness of determining such value. A State must not play favorites in the operation of its taxing system between business confined within its borders and the common interests of the nation expressed through business conducted across State lines. Such favoritism is barred whether it is overtly designed or results from the actual operation of a taxing scheme. The Maryland tax does not obviously discriminate against interstate commerce. But a tax for the privilege of road use may impose serious disadvantages upon that commerce. So long as a State bases its tax on a relevant measure of actual road use, obviously both interstate and intrastate carriers pay according to the facilities in fact provided by the State. But a tax levied for the privilege of using roads, and not their actual use, may, in the normal course of operations and not as a fanciful hypothesis, involve an undue burden on interstate carriers. While the privilege extended by a State is unlimited in form, and thus theoretically the same for all vehicles, whether interstate or intrastate, the intrastate vehicle can and will exercise the privilege whenever it is in operation, while the interstate vehicle must necessarily forego the privilege some of the time simply because of its interstate character, i. e., because it operates in other States as well. In the general average of instances, the privilege is not as valuable to the interstate as to the intrastate carrier. And because it operates in other States there is danger — and not a fanciful danger — that the interstate carrier will be subject to the privilege taxes of several States, even though his entire use of the highways is not significantly greater than that of intrastate operators who are subject to only one privilege tax. When a privilege tax is relatively small in amount, and therefore to be treated as a rough equivalent for what the State may exact with due regard to administrative practicalities, the danger of an unfair burden falling upon interstate commerce remains correspondingly small. Cf. Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen, 322 U. S. 202, 210-11. But a large privilege tax presents dangers not unlike those arising from unapportioned gross receipts taxes on interstate transportation beyond a State’s power to impose. Cf. Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Mealey, 334 U. S. 653. These practical considerations prevailed against a State in Sprout v. South Bend, 277 U. S. 163: “A flat tax, substantial in amount and the same for busses plying the streets continuously in local service and for busses making, as do many interstate busses, only a single trip daily, could hardly have been designed as a measure of the cost or value of the use of the highways.” 277 U. S. at 170. That the Court has at all times been aware of this problem is demonstrated by its reiteration throughout the relevant decisions that the charge must be “reasonable in amount.” See especially Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Comm’n, 295 U. S. 285, 289: “The fee is moderate in amount,” and Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of Railroad Comm’rs, 332 U. S. 495, 507:“. . . the aggregate amount of both taxes combined is less than that of taxes heretofore sustained.” The problem is inescapably one of determining how much is too much, in the total nature of the tax. Thus, it becomes important to see how the Maryland tax compares in amount with similar taxes in prior cases. This is done, not to test the tax as individually applied to appellants, but to determine whether general application of a tax of this magnitude may fairly be deemed to burden interstate commerce unduly. Examination of decided cases reveals that the largest flat tax heretofore sustained was $15 for six months or $30 per year, and the largest annual tax based upon size or weight was $75.° See Appendix to this opinion, post, p. 561. The Maryland taxes on the three appellants amounted to $372, $505 and $580, but since the Maryland tax is not annual, these amounts are not comparable to amounts previously sustained. In order to equate them, information is needed as to the number of years typical motor carriers are likely to operate such busses over Maryland roads. Even taking the assumption of the Maryland Court of Appeals, not based on any evidence in the record, that five years was a fair estimate, the amounts are in excess of any sustained by this Court. Therefore, even if the Court were to accept the formula of the Maryland titling tax, the case should be remanded for a finding of the anticipated period of use in order to have some basis of appraising the validity of the amount. III. The Court’s failure to treat the danger that large privilege taxes will unduly burden interstate commerce— quite apart from excessiveness in terms of State costs— is not unlike its explicit rejection of the requirement that the taxing formula be reasonably related to the purpose which alone justifies the tax. Both problems involve the resolution of conflicting interests, which in application inevitably requires nice distinctions. In this case the Court attempts to avoid difficulties through what seems to me to be an exercise in absolutes. These problems involve questions of reasonableness and degree but their determination affects the harmonious functioning of our federal system. I do not believe they can be solved by disregarding the national interest merely because a State tax levied in a particular case does not on its face appear monstrous in amount. See Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 355. I would reverse. Maryland also imposes a tax for each passenger seat of one-thirtieth of a cent per mile traveled on Maryland roads. Maryland Ann. Code (1947 Cum. Supp.), Art. 81, §_218. Prior to 1947 the mileage tax applied both to interstate and intrastate carriers; the 2% “titling tax” here challenged applied to intrastate carriers only. At that time the state legislature made significant changes. It made the titling tax applicable to interstate as well as to intrastate carriers and reduced the seat-mile tax from one-eighteenth cent to one-thirtieth cent. Chapters 560 and 326, 1947 Laws of the General Assembly of Maryland. See cases collected in Notes, 75 L. Ed. 953 and 92 L. Ed. 109. Sprout v. South Bend, 277 U. S. 163; Interstate Transit, Inc. v. Lindsey, 283 U. S. 183; Ingels v. Morf, 300 U. S. 290. And see case collections cited in note 2, supra. For examples of the many factors on which taxes have been hinged, see Note, 92 L. Ed. 109, 119-123. This statement was made in a case where flat license fees were based on a vehicle’s rated horsepower. In that case the person held liable for the state tax was a nonresident driving through the state. By citation of this case we do not mean to imply that the constitutional rule relating to a state’s power to collect for the use of its roads by occasional travelers is as broad as where road use by carriers is involved. See Aero Transit Co. v. Comm’rs, 332 U. S. 495, 503. See also the opinions in Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160. See note 1, supra. One example of the complexities springing from state attempts to weigh numerous factors was the Indiana tax upheld in Eavey Co. v. Department of Treasury, 216 Ind. 255, 264, 24 N. E. 2d 268, 272, which was "... based upon the carrying capacity, number of wheels per axle, load per axle, size of tires used, weight, and other elements described in the act, all of which bear a direct relation to the hazards of the highways.” Congress has passed comprehensive legislation regulating interstate carriers in which it is declared that “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect the powers of taxation of the several States . . . .” 49 U. S. C. § 302 (b). See Brashear Freight Lines v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 23 F. Supp. 865; see also Maurer v. Hamilton, 309 U. S. 598. It is interesting to note that the Interstate Commerce Commission charged with the duty of fixing rates and administering the Motor Carrier Act requires carriers to keep accounts showing the “cost of all taxes, licenses and fees assessed for the privilege of operating revenue vehicles over the highways, such as registration fees, license plate fees, . . . certificates of title fees . . . and similar items . . . .” 49 CFR, 1947 Supp., § 182.5220. The relevant portion of § 25A reads more fully as follows: “In addition to the charges prescribed by this Article there is hereby levied and imposed an excise tax for the issuance of every original certificate of title for motor vehicles in this State and for the issuance of every subsequent certificate of title for motor vehicles in this State in the case of sales or resales thereof, and on and after July 1, 1947, the Department of Motor Vehicles shall collect said tax upon the issuance of every such certificate of title of a motor vehicle at the rate of two per centum of the fair market value of every motor vehicle for which such certificate of title is applied for and issued.” Although two of the appellants also engage to some extent in intrastate transportation, it was not argued either here or below that this has any bearing on the case. Cf. Sprout v. South Bend, 277 U. S. 163, 170-71. The Court, to be sure, does not avow that the validity of the tax depends on the relation of its size to the financial condition of the carrier. But such is the effective consequence of the considerations by which it determines validity. Once the Court abandons, as it does, an inquiry into the reasonableness of the tax basis in relation to the allowable purposes of the tax, there is nothing by which the validity of the imposition can be judged except its effect upon the finances of the carrier, unless perchance the matter is to be left wholly at large. Even in that event, the Court is bound to make ad hoc judgments that the particular amount a State asks of a carrier is not going to hurt it. These dangers are heightened when the tax falls upon an interstate motor carrier authorized to operate only on a fixed route. Quite illustrative of the seriousness of the general problem are the facts concerning one of appellants here, Capitol Greyhound Lines, which is authorized by the I. C. C. to operate a bus line over a fixed route between Cincinnati, Ohio and Washington, D. C., a distance of about 496 miles, only nine of which are over Maryland’s State roads. To say that Capitol has an unlimited privilege to use Maryland’s roads and is therefore being treated on a par with intrastate carriers is to ignore the admonition that “Regulation and commerce among the States both are practical rather than technical conceptions . . . .” Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 225. Mr. Justice Brandéis’ reference to a flat tax was not intended to exclude size or weight taxes, for the Sprout case involved a tax based upon seating capacity. Rather, he was referring to privilege, as distinguished from mileage, taxes. The potentiality of unfair burdens on interstate commerce was presented sharply in the Sprout case since the tax was levied by a municipality and there were 33 other cities along the route of the interstate carrier. See 277 TJ. S. at 164. The statute in Clark v. Poor, 274 U. S. 554, provided for a range of taxation of from $20 to $200, and that in Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U. S. 169, a range of from $30 to $400. But in neither case was evidence introduced as to the amounts to which the particular vehicle owners would be subject, and so the Court was not faced with the question whether the amount was reasonable. See Appendix, n. 3, post, p. 561. The Maryland court estimated the “useful life” of the busses. It should have considered the probable period of use by a typical motor carrier since the tax is imposed upon any transfer of the vehicle to another. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo, a lawful permanent resident who has lived in the United States since he was five years old, faced deportation under federal law after he committed two misdemeanor drug possession offenses in Texas. For the first, possession of less than two ounces of marijuana, he received 20 days in jail. For the second, possession without a prescription of one tablet of a common anti-anxiety medication, he received 10 days in jail. After this second offense, the Federal Government initiated removal proceedings against him. He conceded that he was removable, but claimed he was eligible for discretionary relief from removal under 8 U. S. C. § 1229b(a). To decide whether Carachuri-Rosendo is eligible to seek cancellation of removal or waiver of inadmissibility under § 1229b(a), we must decide whether he has been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” §1229b(a)(3), a category of crimes singled out for the harshest deportation consequences. The Court of Appeals held that a simple drug possession offense, committed after the conviction for a first possession offense became final, is always an aggravated felony. We now reverse and hold that second or subsequent simple possession offenses are not aggravated felonies under § 1101(a)(43) when, as in this case, the state conviction is not based on the fact of a prior conviction. I Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq., a lawful permanent resident subject to removal from the United States may apply for discretionary cancellation of removal if, inter alia, he “has not been convicted of any aggravated felony,” § 1229b(a)(3). The statutory definition of the term “aggravated felony” includes a list of numerous federal offenses, one of which is “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance... including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18).” § 1101(a)(43)(B). Section 924(c)(2), in turn, defines a “drug trafficking crime” to mean “any felony punishable under,” inter alia, “the Controlled Substances Act (21 U. S. C. 801 et seq.).” A felony is a crime for which the “maximum term of imprisonment authorized” is “more than one year.” 18 U. S. C. § 3559(a). The maze of statutory cross-references continues. Section 404 of the Controlled Substances Act criminalizes simple possession offenses, the type of offense at issue in this case. But it prescribes punishment for both misdemeanor and felony offenses. Except for simple possession of crack cocaine or flunitrazepam, a first-time simple possession offense is a federal misdemeanor; the maximum term authorized for such a conviction is less than one year. 21 U. S. C. § 844(a). However, a conviction for a simple possession offense “after a prior conviction under this subchapter [or] under the law of any State... has become final” — what we will call recidivist simple possession — may be punished as a felony, with a prison sentence of up to two years. Ibid.* ** Thus, except for simple possession offenses involving isolated categories of drugs not presently at issue, only recidivist simple possession offenses are “punishable” as a federal “felony” under the Controlled Substances Act, 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(2). And thus only a conviction within this particular category of simple possession offenses might, conceivably, be an “aggravated felony” under 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(43). For a subsequent simple possession offense to be eligible for an enhanced punishment, i. e., to be punishable as a felony, the Controlled Substances Act requires that a prosecutor charge the existence of the prior simple possession conviction before trial, or before a guilty plea. See 21 U. S. C. § 851(a)(1). Notice, plus an opportunity to challenge the validity of the prior conviction used to enhance the current conviction, §§851(b)-(c), are mandatory prerequisites to obtaining a punishment based on the fact of a prior conviction. And they are also necessary prerequisites under federal law to “authorize” a felony punishment, 18 U. S. C. § 3559(a), for the type of simple possession offense at issue in this case. Neither the definition of an “illicit trafficking” offense under 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) nor that of a “drug trafficking crime” under 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(2) describes or references any state offenses. The “aggravated felony” definition does explain that the term applies “to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law.” § 1101(a)(43). But in Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U. S. 47, 56 (2006), we determined that, in order to be an “aggravated felony” for immigration law purposes, a state drug conviction must be punishable as a felony under federal law. We held that “a state offense constitutes a 'felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act’ only if it proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under that federal law.” Id., at 60. Despite the fact that the Lopez petitioner had been punished as a felon under state law — and, indeed, received a 5-year sentence — the conduct of his offense was not punishable as a felony under federal law, and this prevented the state conviction from qualifying as an aggravated felony for immigration law purposes. Id., at 55 (“Unless a state offense is punishable as a federal felony it does not count”). In the case before us, the Government argues that Carachuri-Rosendo, despite having received only a 10-day sentence for his Texas misdemeanor simple possession offense, nevertheless has been “convicted” of an “aggravated felony” within the meaning of the INA. This is so, the Government contends, because had Carachuri-Rosendo been prosecuted in federal court instead of state court, he could have been prosecuted as a felon and received a 2-year sentence based on the fact of his prior simple possession offense. Our holding in Lopez teaches that, for a state conviction to qualify as an “aggravated felony” under the INA, it is necessary for the underlying conduct to be punishable as a federal felony. Id., at 60. We now must determine whether the mere possibility, no matter how remote, that a 2-year sentence might have been imposed in a federal trial is a sufficient basis for concluding that a state misdemeanant who was not charged as a recidivist has been “convicted” of an “aggravated felony” within the meaning of § 1229b(a)(3). II Carachuri-Rosendo was born in Mexico in 1978. He came to the United States with his parents in 1983 and has been a lawful permanent resident of Texas ever since. His common-law wife and four children are American citizens, as are his mother and two sisters. Like so many in this country, Carachuri-Rosendo has gotten into some trouble with our drug laws. In 2004, he pleaded guilty to possessing less than two ounces of marijuana, a class B misdemeanor, and was sentenced to confinement for 20 days by a Texas court. See App. 19a-22a; Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.121(a) and (b)(1) (West Supp. 2009). In 2005, he pleaded nolo contendere to possessing less than 28 grams — one tablet — of alprazolam (known commercially as Xanax) without a prescription, a class A misdemeanor. See App. 31a-34a; Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.117(a) and (b). Although Texas law, like federal law, authorized a sentencing enhancement if the prosecutor proved that Carachuri-Rosendo had been previously convicted of an offense of a similar class, the State did not elect to seek an enhancement based on his criminal history. App. 32a. In 2006, on the basis of Carachuri-Rosendo’s second possession offense, the Federal Government initiated removal proceedings against him. Appearing pro se before the Immigration Judge, Carachuri-Rosendo did not dispute that his conviction for possessing one tablet of Xanax without a prescription made him removable, but he applied for a discretionary cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U. S. C. §1229b(a). Under that statutory provision, the Attorney General may cancel an order of removal or an order of inadmissibility so long as, inter alia, the noncitizen “has not been convicted of a[n] aggravated felony.” § 1229b(a)(3). The Immigration Judge held that petitioner’s second simple possession conviction was an “aggravated felony” that made him ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) followed Circuit precedent and affirmed that decision, but it disagreed with the Immigration Judge’s legal analysis. In its en bane opinion, the BIA ruled that in cases arising in Circuits in which the question had not yet been decided, the BIA would not treat a second or successive misdemeanor conviction as an aggravated felony unless the conviction contained a finding that the offender was a recidivist. In re Carachuri-Rosendo, 24 I. & N. Dec. 382, 387, 391 (2007). The BIA explained that the statutory question is complicated by the fact that “‘recidivist possession’” is not a “discrete offense under Federal law.” Id., at 388. While most federal offenses are defined by elements that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, recidivist possession is an “amalgam of elements, substantive sentencing factors, and procedural safeguards.” Id., at 389. Section 844(a) defines simple possession by reference to statutory elements, but “facts leading to recidivist felony punishment, such as the existence of a prior conviction, do not qualify as ‘elements’ in the traditional sense.” Ibid. The BIA observed, however, that “21 U. S. C. §851 precludes a Federal judge from enhancing a drug offender’s sentence on the basis of recidivism absent compliance with a number of safeguards that, among other things, serve to protect the right of the accused to notice and an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of an increased punishment based on prior convictions.” Ibid. Therefore, these requirements “are part and parcel of what it means for a crime to be a ‘recidivist’ offense.” Id., at 391. “[Ujnless the State successfully sought to impose punishment for a recidivist drug conviction,” the BIA concluded, a state simple possession “conviction cannot ‘proscribe conduct punishable as’ recidivist possession” under federal law. Ibid. On review, the Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA’s decision in Carachuri-Rosendo’s case, reading our decision in Lopez as dictating its outcome. “[I]f the conduct proscribed by state offense could have been prosecuted as a felony” under the Controlled Substances Act, the court reasoned, then the defendant’s conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony. 570 F. 3d 263, 267 (CA5 2009) (citing Lopez, 549 U. S., at 60). The court deemed its analysis “[t]he hypothetical approach,” a term it derived from its understanding of our method of analysis in Lopez. 570 F. 3d, at 266, and n. 3; see also United States v. Pacheco-Diaz, 513 F. 3d 776, 779 (CA7 2008) (per curiam) (employing the “hypothetical-federal-felony approach”). Under this approach, as the Court of Appeals understood it, courts “g[o] beyond the state statute’s elements to look at the hypothetical conduct a state statute proscribes.” 570 F. 3d, at 266, n. 3. Accordingly, any “conduct” that “hypothetically” “could have been punished as a felony” “had [it] been prosecuted in federal court” is an “aggravated felony” for federal immigration law purposes. Id., at 265. In applying this hypothetical approach, the Court of Appeals did not discuss the §851 procedural requirements. Instead, it concluded that because Carachuri-Rosendo’s “conduct” could have been prosecuted as simple possession with a recidivist enhancement under state law — even though it was not — it could have also been punished as a felony under federal law. Thus, in the Court of Appeals’ view, his conviction for simple possession under state law, without a recidivist enhancement, was an “aggravated felony” for immigration law purposes. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals over whether subsequent simple possession offenses are aggravated felonies. 558 U. S. 1091 (2009). Ill When interpreting the statutory provisions under dispute, we begin by looking at the terms of the provisions and the “eommonsense conception” of those terms. Lopez, 549 U. S., at 53. Carachuri-Rosendo is ineligible for cancellation of removal only if he was “convicted of a[n] aggravated felony,” 8 U. S. C. § 1229b(a)(3), which, in this case, could only be a conviction for “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance... including a drug trafficking crime,” § 1101(a)(43)(B). A recidivist possession offense such as Carachuri-Rosendo’s does not fit easily into the “everyday understanding” of those terms, Lopez, 549 U. S., at 53. This type of petty simple possession offense is not typically thought of as an “aggravated felony” or as “illicit trafficking.” We explained in Lopez that “ordinarily ‘trafficking’ means some sort of commercial dealing.” Id., at 53-54 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1534 (8th ed. 2004». And just as in Lopez, “[cjommerce... was no part of” Caraehuri-Rosendo’s possessing a single tablet of Xanax, “and certainly it is no element of simple possession.” 549 U. S., at 54. As an initial matter, then, we observe that a reading of this statutory scheme that would apply an “aggravated” or “trafficking” label to any simple possession offense is, to say the least, counterintuitive and “unorthodox,” ibid. The same is true for the type of penalty at issue. We do not usually think of a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug as an “aggravated felony.” A “felony,” we have come to understand, is a “serious crime usu[ally] punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death.” Black’s Law Dictionary 694 (9th ed. 2009) (hereinafter Black’s). An “aggravated” offense is one “made worse or more serious by circumstances such as violence, the presence of a deadly weapon, or the intent to commit another crime.” Id., at 75. The term “aggravated felony” is unique to Title 8, which covers immigration matters; it is not a term used elsewhere within the United States Code. Our statutory criminal law classifies the most insignificant of federal felonies — “Class E” felonies — as carrying a sentence of “less than five years but more than one year.” 18 U. S. C. §3559(a)(5). While it is true that a defendant’s criminal history might be seen to make an offense “worse” by virtue thereof, Black’s 75, it is nevertheless unorthodox to classify this type of petty simple possession recidivism as an “aggravated felony.” Of course, as Justice Souter observed in his opinion for the Court in Lopez, Congress, like “Humpty Dumpty,” has the power to give words unorthodox meanings. 549 U. S., at 54. But in this case the Government argues for a result that “the English language tells us not to expect,” so we must be “very wary of the Government’s position.” Ibid. Because the English language tells us that most aggravated felonies are punishable by sentences far longer than 10 days, and that mere possession of one tablet of Xanax does not constitute “trafficking,” Lopez instructs us to be doubly wary of the Government’s position in this ease. IV The Government’s position, like the Court of Appeals’ “hypothetical approach,” would treat all “conduct punishable as a felony” as the equivalent of a “conviction” of a felony whenever, hypothetically speaking, the underlying conduct could have received felony treatment under federal law. We find this reasoning — and the “hypothetical approach” itself — unpersuasive for the following reasons. First, and most fundamentally, the Government’s position ignores the text of the INA, which limits the Attorney General’s cancellation power only when, inter alia, a nonciti-zen “has... been convicted of a[n] aggravated felony.” 8 U. S. C. § 1229b(a)(3) (emphasis added). The text thus indicates that we are to look to the conviction itself as our starting place, not to what might have or could have been charged. And to be convicted of an aggravated felony punishable as such under the Controlled Substances Act, the “maximum term of imprisonment authorized” must be “more than one year,” 18 U. S. C. § 3559(a)(5). Congress, recall, chose to authorize only a 1-year sentence for nearly all simple possession offenses, but it created a narrow exception for those cases in which a prosecutor elects to charge the defendant as a recidivist and the defendant receives notice and an opportunity to defend against that charge. See 21 U. S. C. §851; Part I, supra. Indisputably, Carachuri-Rosendo’s record of conviction contains no finding of the fact of his prior drug offense. Carachuri-Rosendo argues that even such a finding would be insufficient, and that a prosecutorial charge of recidivism and an opportunity to defend against that charge also would be required before he could be deemed “convicted” of a felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act. In the absence of any finding of recidivism, we need not, and do not, decide whether these additional procedures would be necessary. Although a federal immigration court may have the power to make a recidivist finding in the first instance, see, e. g., Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224, 247 (1998), it cannot, ex post, enhance the state offense of record just because facts known to it would have authorized a greater penalty under either state or federal law. Carachuri-Rosendo was not actually “convicted,” § 1229b(a)(3), of a drug possession offense committed “after a prior conviction... has become final,” § 844(a), and no subsequent development can undo that history. The Government contends that if Carachuri-Rosendo had been prosecuted in federal court for simple possession under 21 U. S. C. § 844(a) under identical circumstances, he would have committed an “aggravated felony” for immigration law purposes. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36-37. This is so, the Government suggests, because the only statutory text that matters is the word “punishable” in 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(2): Whatever conduct might be “punishable” as a felony, regardless of whether it actually is so punished or not, is a felony for immigration law purposes. But for the reasons just stated, the circumstances of Carachuri-Rosendo’s prosecution were not identical to those hypothesized by the Government. And the Government’s abstracted approach to § 924(c)(2) cannot be reconciled with the more concrete guidance of 8 U. S. C. § 1229b(a)(3), which limits the Attorney General’s cancellation authority only when the noncitizen has actually been “convicted of a[n] aggravated felony” — not when he merely could have been convicted of a felony but was not. Second, and relatedly, the Government’s position fails to give effect to the mandatory notice and process requirements contained in 21 U. S. C. §851. For federal-law purposes, a simple possession offense is not “punishable” as a felony unless a federal prosecutor first elects to charge a defendant as a recidivist in the criminal information. The statute, as described in Part I, supra, at 568-569, speaks in mandatory terms, permitting “[n]o person” to be subject to a recidivist enhancement — and therefore, in this case, a felony sentence — “unless” he has been given notice of the Government’s intent to prove the fact of a prior conviction. Federal law also gives the defendant an opportunity to challenge the fact of the prior conviction itself. §§851(b)-(c). The Government would dismiss these procedures as meaningless, so long as they may be satisfied during the immigration proceeding. But these procedural requirements have great practical significance with respect to the conviction itself and are integral to the structure and design of our drug laws. They authorize prosecutors to exercise discretion when electing whether to pursue a recidivist enhancement. See United States v. Dodson, 288 F. 3d 153, 159 (CA5 2002) (“Whereas the prior version of [§ 851(a)] made enhancements for prior offenses mandatory, the new statutory scheme gave prosecutors discretion whether to seek enhancements based on prior convictions”). Because the procedure^ are prerequisites to an enhanced sentence, §851 allows federal prosecutors to choose whether to seek a conviction that is “punishable” as a felony under § 844(a). Underscoring the significance of the §851 procedures, the United States Attorney’s Manual places decisions with respect to seeking recidivist enhancements on par with the filing of a criminal charge against a defendant. See Dept, of Justice, United States Attorneys’ Manual §9-27.300(B) (1997), online at http:// www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/ 27mcrm.htm#9-27.300 (as visited June 3, 2010, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (“Every prosecutor should regard the filing of an information under 21 U. S. C. § 851... as equivalent to the filing of charges”). Many state criminal codes, like the federal scheme, afford similar deference to prosecutorial discretion when prescribing recidivist enhancements. Texas is one such State. See, e. g., Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.42, 12.43 (West 2003 and Supp. 2009) (recidivist enhancement is available “[i]f it is shown on the trial” that defendant was previously convicted of identified categories of felonies and misdemeanors). And, in this case, the prosecutor specifically elected to “[ajbandon” a recidivist enhancement under state law. App. 32a (reproducing state judgment). Were we to permit a federal immigration judge to apply his own recidivist enhancement after the fact so as to make the noncitizen’s offense “punishable” as a felony for immigration law purposes, we would denigrate the independent judgment of state prosecutors to execute the laws of those sovereigns. Third, the Court of Appeals’ hypothetical felony approach is based on a misreading of our decision in Lopez. We never used the term “hypothetical” to describe our analysis in that case. We did look to the “proscribed conduct” of a state offense to determine whether it is “punishable as a felony under that federal law.” 549 U. S., at 60. But the “hypothetical approach” employed by the Court of Appeals introduces a level of conjecture at the outset of this inquiry that has no basis in Lopez. It ignores both the conviction (the relevant statutory hook) and the conduct actually punished by the state offense. Instead, it focuses on facts known to the immigration court that could have but did not serve as the basis for the state conviction and punishment. As the Sixth Circuit has explained, this approach is really a “ ‘hypothetical to a hypothetical.’” Rashid v. Mukasey, 531 F. 3d 438, 445 (2008). Not only does the Government wish us to consider a fictional federal felony — whether the crime for which Carachuri-Rosendo was actually convicted would be a felony under the Controlled Substances Act — but the Government also wants us to consider facts not at issue in the crime of conviction (i. e., the existence of a prior conviction) to determine whether Carachuri-Rosendo could have been charged with a federal felony. This methodology is far removed from the more focused, categorical inquiry employed in Lopez. Fourth, it seems clear that the Government’s argument is inconsistent with common practice in the federal courts. It is quite unlikely that the “conduct” that gave rise to Caraehuri-Rosendo’s conviction would have been punished as a felony in federal court. Under the United States Sentenc-' ing Guidelines, Carachuri-Rosendo’s recommended sentence, based on the type of controlled substance at issue, would not have exceeded one year and very likely would have been less than six months. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §2D2.1(a)(3) (Nov. 2009) (base offense level of 4). And as was true in Lopez, the Government has provided us with no empirical data suggesting that “even a single eager Assistant United States Attorney” has ever sought to prosecute a comparable federal defendant as a felon. 549 U. S., at 57-58. The Government’s “hypothetical” approach to this case is therefore misleading as well as speculative, in that Carachuri-Rosendo’s federal-court counterpart would not, in actuality, have faced any felony charge. Finally, as we noted in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, 11, n. 8 (2004), ambiguities in criminal statutes referenced in immigration laws should be construed in the noncitizen’s favor. And here the critical language appears in a criminal statute, 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2). We note that whether a noncitizen has committed an “aggravated felony” is relevant, inter alia, to the type of relief he may obtain from a removal order, but not to whether he is in fact removable. In other words, to the extent that our rejection of the Government’s broad understanding of the scope of “aggravated felony” may have any practical effect on policing our Nation’s borders, it is a limited one. Carachuri-Rosendo, and others in his position, may now seek cancellation of removal and thereby avoid the harsh consequence of mandatory removal. But he will not avoid the fact that his conviction makes him, in the first instance, removable. Any relief he may obtain depends upon the discretion of the Attorney General. * % * In sum, the Government is correct that to qualify as an “aggravated felony” under the INA, the conduct prohibited by state law must be punishable as a felony under federal law. See Lopez, 549 U. S., at 60. But as the text and structure of the relevant statutory provisions demonstrate, the defendant must also have been actually convicted of a crime that is itself punishable as a felony under federal law. The mere possibility that the defendant’s conduct, coupled with facts outside of the record of conviction, could have authorized a felony conviction under federal law is insufficient to satisfy the statutory command that a noncitizen be “convicted of a[n] aggravated felony” before he loses the opportunity to seek cancellation of removal. 8 U. S. C. § 1229b(a)(3). The Court of Appeals, as well as the Government, made the logical error of assuming that a necessary component of an aggravated felony is also sufficient to satisfy its statutory definition. V We hold that when a defendant has been convicted of a simple possession offense that has not been enhanced based on the fact of a prior conviction, he has not been “convicted” under § 1229b(a)(3) of a “felony punishable” as such “under the Controlled Substances Act,” 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(2). The prosecutor in Carachuri-Rosendo’s case declined to charge him as a recidivist. He has, therefore, not been convicted of a felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered. The term “aggravated felony” “applies to an offense... whether in violation of Federal or State law” (or, in certain circumstances, “the law of a foreign country”). 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(43). The Controlled Substances Act itself defines the term ‘Telón/’ as “any Federal or State offense classified by applicable Federal or State law as a felony.” 21 U. S. C. §802(13). The Government concedes that the classification of felonies under 18 U. S. C. § 3559(a) controls in this case. Brief for Respondent 4. Although § 844(a) does not expressly define a separate offense of “recidivist simple possession,” the fact of a prior conviction must nonetheless be found before a defendant is subject to a felony sentence. True, the statutory scheme comports with Almendarez-Torres v. United, States, 523 U. S. 224, 247 (1998), in which we explained that the Constitution does not require treating recidivism as an element of the offense. In other words, Congress has permissibly set out a criminal offense for simple possession whereby a recidivist finding by the judge, by a preponderance of the evidence, authorizes a punishment that exceeds the statutory maximum penalty for a simple possession offense. But the fact of a prior conviction must still be found — if only by a judge and if only by a preponderance of the evidence — before a defendant is subject to felony punishment. For present purposes, we therefore view §844(a)’s felony simple possession provision as separate and distinct from the misdemeanor simple possession offense that section also prescribes. The statute provides in relevant part: “Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year... except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction... he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years....” 21 U. S. C. § 844(a). This subsection provides: “No person who stands convicted of an offense under this part shall be sentenced to increased punishment by reason of one or more prior convictions, unless before trial, or before entry of a plea of guilty, the United States attorney files an information with the court (and serves a copy of such information on the person or counsel for the person) stating in writing the previous convictions to be relied upon.” § 851(a)(1). We have previously recognized the mandatory nature of these requirements, as have the Courts of Appeals. See United States v. LaBonte, 520 U. S. 751, 754, n. 1 (1997) (“We note that imposition of an enhanced penalty [for recidivism] is not automatic.... If the Government does not file such notice [under 21 U. S. C. § 851(a)(1)]... the lower sentencing range will he applied even though the defendant may otherwise be eligible for the increased penalty”); see also, e. g., United States v. Beasley, 495 F. 3d 142, 148 (CA4 2007); United States v. Ceballos, 302 F. 3d 679, 690-692 (CA7 2002); United States v. Dodson, 288 F. 3d 153, 159 (CA5 2002); United States v. Mooring, 287 F. 3d 725, 727-728 (CA8 2002). Although §851’s procedural safeguards are not constitutionally compelled, see Almendarez-Torres, 523 U. S., at 247, they are nevertheless a mandatory feature of the Controlled Substances Act and a prerequisite to securing a felony conviction under § 844(a) for a successive simple possession offense. But for trivial marijuana possession offenses (such as CarachuriRosendo's 2004 state offense), virtually all drug offenses are grounds for removal under 8 U. S. C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Since the Court of Appeals issued its decision in this case, CarachuriRosendo has been removed. Brief for Respondent 10-11. Neither party, however, has suggested that this case is now moot. If Carachuri-Rosendo was not convicted of an “aggravated felony,” and if he continues to satisfy the requirements of 8 U. S. C. § 1229b(a), he may still seek cancellation of removal even after having been removed. See § 1229b(a) (“The Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable horn the United States if the alien” meets several criteria). Compare 570 F. 3d 263 (CA5 2009) (holding state conviction for simple possession after prior conviction for simple possession is a felony under the Controlled Substances Act and thus an aggravated felony) and Fernandez v. Mukasey, 544 P. 3d 862 (CA7 2008) (same), with Berhe v. Gonzales, 464 F. 3d 74 (CA1 2006) (taking contrary view), Alsol v. Mukasey, 548 F. 3d 207 (CA2 2008) (same), Gerbier v. Holmes, 280 F. 3d 297 (CA3 2002) (same), and Rashid v. Mukasey, 531 F. 3d 438 (CA6 2008) (same). The Court stated in Lopez that "recidivist possession, see 21 U. S. C. § 844(a), clearly fall[s] within the definitions used by Congress in 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) and 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(2), regardless of whether these federal possession felonies or their state counterparts constitute ‘illicit trafficking in a controlled substance’ or ‘drug trafficking’ as those terms are used in ordinary speech.” 549 U. S., at 55, n. 6. Our decision today is not in conflict with this footnote; it is still true that recidivist simple possession offenses charged and prosecuted as such “clearly fall” within the definition of an aggravated felony. What we had no occasion to decide in Lopez, and what we now address, is what it means to be convicted of an aggravated felony. Lopez teaches us that it is necessary that the conduct punished under state law correspond to a felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act to be an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(B). But it does not instruct as to whether the mere possibility that conduct could be — but is not — charged as an offense punishable Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether the court’s instructions in a trial for mailing obscene materials prior to 1973, and therefore tried under the Roth-Memoirs standards, could properly include children and sensitive persons within the definition of the community by whose standards obscenity is to be judged. We are also' asked to determine whether the evidence supported a charge that members of deviant sexual groups may be considered in determining whether the materials appealed to prurient interest in sex; whether a charge of pandering was proper in light of the evidence; and whether comparison evidence proffered by petitioner should have been admitted on the issue of contemporary community standards. Petitioner was convicted after a jury trial in United States District Court on 11 counts, charging that he had mailed obscene materials and advertising brochures for obscene materials in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1461 (1976 ed.). On appeal, his conviction was reversed on the grounds that the instructions to the jury defining obscenity had been cast under the standards established in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), although the offenses charged occurred in 1971 when the standards announced in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), and particularized in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 (1966), were applicable. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the District Court for a new trial under the standards controlling in 1971. No. 73-2900 (CA9 Feb. 5, 1975, rehearing denied May 13, 1975); see Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188 (1977). On retrial in 1976, petitioner was again convicted on the same 11 counts. He was sentenced to terms of four years’ imprisonment on each count, the terms to be served concurrently, and fined $500 on each count, for a total fine of $5,500. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 551 F. 2d 1155 (CA9 1977). I The evidence presented by the Government in its case in chief consisted of materials mailed by the petitioner accompanied by a stipulation of facts which, among other things, recited that petitioner, knowing the contents of the mailings, had “voluntarily and intentionally” used the mails on 11 occasions to deliver brochures illustrating sex books, magazines, and films, and to deliver a sex magazine (one count) and a sex film (one count), with the intention that these were for the personal use of the recipients. From the stipulation and the record, it appears undisputed that the recipients were adults who resided both within and without the State of California- Because of the basis of our disposition of this case, it is unnecessary for us to review the contents of the exhibits in detail. The defense consisted of expert testimony and surveys offered to demonstrate that the materials did not appeal to prurient interest, were not in conflict with community standards, and had redeeming social value. Two films were proffered by the defense for the stated purpose of demonstrating that comparable material had received wide box office acceptance, thus demonstrating that the materials covered by the indictment were not obscene and complied with community standards. As a rebuttal witness, the Government presented an expert who testified as to what some of the exhibits depicted and that in his opinion they appealed to the prurient interest of the average person and to that of members of particular deviant groups. II In this Court, as in the Court of Appeals, petitioner challenges four parts of the jury instructions and the trial court's rejection of the comparison films. A. Instruction as to Children Petitioner challenges that part of the jury instruction which read: “In determining community standards, you are to consider the community as a whole, young and old, educated and uneducated, the religious and the irreligious, men, women and children, from all walks of life.” (Emphasis added.) The Court of Appeals concluded that the inclusion of children was “unnecessary” and that it would “prefer that children be excluded from the court’s [jury] instruction until the Supreme Court clearly indicates that inclusion is proper.” 551 F. 2d, at 1158. It correctly noted that this Court had been ambivalent on this point, having sustained the conviction in Roth, supra, where the instruction included children, and having intimated later in Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463, 465 n. 3 (1966), that it did not necessarily approve the inclusion of “children” as part of the community instruction. Reviewing the charge as a whole under the traditional standard of review, cogent arguments can be made that the inclusion of children was harmless error, see Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 107 (1974); however, the courts, the bar, and the public are entitled to greater clarity than is offered by the ambiguous comment in Ginzburg on this score. Since this is a federal prosecution under an Act of Congress, we elect to take this occasion to make clear that children are not to be included for these purposes as part of the “community” as that term relates to the “obscene materials” proscribed by 18 U. S. C. § 1461 (1976 ed.). Cf. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 146 (1973). Earlier in the same Term in which Roth was decided, the Court had reversed a conviction under a state statute which made criminal the dissemination of a book “found to have a potentially deleterious influence on youth.” Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380, 383 (1957). The statute was invalidated because its “incidence ... is to reduce the adult population . .. to reading only what is fit for children.” Ibid. The instruction given here, when read as a whole, did not have an effect so drastic as the Butler statute. But it may well be that a jury conscientiously striving to define the relevant community of persons, the “average person,” Smith v. United States, 431 U. S. 291, 304 (1977), by whose standards obscenity is to be judged, would reach a much lower “average” when children are part of the equation than it would if it restricted its consideration to the effect of allegedly obscene materials on adults. Cf. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968). There was no evidence that children were the intended recipients of the materials at issue here, or that petitioner had reason to know children were likely to receive the materials. Indeed, an affirmative representation was made that children were not involved in this case. We therefore conclude it was error to instruct the jury that they were a part of the relevant community, and accordingly the conviction cannot stand. B. Instruction as to Sensitive Persons It does not follow, however, as petitioner contends, that the inclusion of “sensitive persons” in the charge advising the jury of whom the community consists was error. The District Court’s charge was: “Thus the brochures, magazines and film are not to be judged on the basis of your personal opinion. Nor are they to be judged by their effect on a particularly sensitive or insensitive person or group in the community. You are to judge these materials by the standard of the hypothetical average person in the community, but in determining this average standard you must include the sensitive and the insensitive, in other words, you must include everyone in the community.” (Emphasis added.) Petitioner's reliance on passages from Miller, 413 U. S., at 33, and Smith v. United States, supra, at 304, for the proposition that inclusion of sensitive persons in the relevant community was error is misplaced. In Miller we said, “[T]he primary concern with requiring a jury to apply the standard of ‘the average person, applying, contemporary community standards’ is to be certain that, so far as material is not aimed at a deviant group, it will be judged by its impact on an average person, rather than a particularly susceptible or sensitive person — or indeed a totally insensitive one. See Roth v. United States, supra, at 489.” This statement was essentially repeated in Smith: “[T]he Court has held that § 1461 embodies a requirement that local rather than national standards should be applied. Handing v. United States, supra. Similarly, obscenity is to be judged according to the average person in the community, rather than the most prudish or the most tolerant. Hamling v. United States, supra; Miller v. California, supra; Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957). Both of these substantive limitations are passed on to the jury in the form of instructions.” (Footnote omitted.) The point of these passages was to emphasize what was an issue central to Roth, that “judging obscenity by the effect of isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons, might well encompass material legitimately treating with sex, and so it must be rejected as unconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of speech and press.” 354 U. S., at 489. But nothing in those opinions suggests that “sensitive” and “insensitive” persons, however defined, are to be excluded from the community as a whole for the purpose of deciding if materials are obscene. In the narrow and limited context of this case, the community includes all adults who constitute it, and a jury can consider them all in determining relevant community standards. The vice is in focusing upon the most susceptible or sensitive members when judging the obscenity of materials, not in including them along with all others in the community. See Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, 508-509 (1966). Petitioner relies also on Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87 (1974), to support his argument. Like Miller and Smith, supra, though, Hamling merely restated the by now familiar rule that jurors are not to base their decision about the materials on their “personal opinion, nor by its effect on a particularly sensitive or insensitive person or group.” 418 U. S., at 107. It is clear the trial court did not instruct the jury to focus on sensitive persons or groups. It explicitly said the jury should not use sensitive persons as a standard, and emphasized that in determining the “average person” standard the jury “must include the sensitive and the insensitive, in other words ... everyone in the community.” The difficulty of framing charges in this area is well recognized. But the term “average person” as used in this charge means what it usually means, and is no less clear than “reasonable person” used for generations in other contexts. Cf. Hamling v. United States, supra, at 104—105. Cautionary instructions to avoid subjective personal and private views in determining community standards can do no more than tell the individual juror that in evaluating the hypothetical “average person” he is to determine the collective view of the community, as best as it can be done. Simon E. Sobeloff, then Solicitor General, later Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, very aptly stated the dilemma: "Is the so-called definition of negligence really a definition? What could be fuzzier than the instruction to the jury that negligence is a failure to observe that care which would be observed by a 'reasonable man’ — a chimerical creature conjured up to give an aura of definiteness where definiteness is not possible. . . . “Every man is likely to think of himself as the happy exemplification of 'the reasonable man’; and so the standard he adopts in order to fulfill the law’s prescription will resemble himself, or what he thinks he is, or what he thinks he should be, even if he is not. All these shifts and variations of his personal norm will find reflection in the verdict. The whole business is necessarily equivocal. This we recognize, but we are reconciled to the impossibility of discovering any form of words that will ring with perfect clarity and be automatically self-executing. Alas, there is no magic push-button in this or in other branches of the law.” (Emphasis added.) However one defines "sensitive” or "insensitive” persons, they are part of the community. The contention that the instruction was erroneous because it included sensitive persons is therefore without merit. C. Instruction as to Deviant Groups Challenge is made to' the inclusion of "members of a deviant sexual group” in the charge which recited: “The first test to be applied, in determining whether a given picture is obscene, is whether the predominant theme or purpose of the picture, when, viewed as a whole and not part by part, and when considered in relation to the intended and probable recipients, is an appeal to the prurient interest of the average person of the community as a whole or the prurient interest of members of a deviant sexual group at the time of mailing. “In applying this test, the question involved is not how the picture now impresses the individual juror, but rather, considering the intended and probable recipients, how the picture would have impressed the average person, or a member of a deviant sexual group at the time they received the picture.” Examination of some of the materials could lead to the reasonable conclusion that their prurient appeal would be more acute to persons of deviant persuasions, but it is equally clear they were intended to arouse the prurient interest of any reader or observer. Nothing prevents a court from giving an instruction on prurient appeal to deviant sexual groups as part of an instruction pertaining to appeal to the average person when the evidence, as here, would support such a charge. See Hamling v. United States, supra, at 128-130. Many of the exhibits depicted aberrant sexual activities. These depictions were generally provided along with or as a part of the materials which apparently were thought likely to appeal to the prurient interest in sex of nondeviant persons. One of the mailings even provided a list of deviant sexual groups which the recipient was asked to mark to indicate interest in receiving the type of materials thought appealing to that particular group. Whether materials are obscene generally can be decided by viewing them; expert testimony is not necessary. Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S., at 465; Hamling v. United States, supra, at 100; see Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring). But petitioner claims that to support an instruction on appeal to the prurient interest of deviants, the prosecution must come forward with evidence to guide the jury in its deliberations, since jurors cannot be presumed to know the reaction of such groups to stimuli as they would that of the average person. Concededly, in the past we have “reserve[d] judgment... on the extreme case . . . where contested materials are directed at such a bizarre deviant group that the experience of the trier of fact would be plainly inadequate to judge whether the material appeals to the [particular] prurient interest.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 56 n. 6 (1973). But here we are not presented with that “extreme” case because the Government did in fact present expert testimony on rebuttal which, when combined with the exhibits themselves, sufficiently guided the jury. This instruction, therefore, was acceptable. D. Instruction as to Pandering Pandering is “the business of purveying textual or graphic matter openly advertised to appeal to the erotic interest of their customers.” Ginzburg v. United States, supra, at 467, citing Roth v. United States, 354 U. S., at 495-496 (Warren, C. J., concurring). We have held, and reaffirmed, that to aid a jury in its determination of whether materials are obscene, the methods of their creation, promotion, or dissemination are relevant. Splawn v. California, 431 U. S. 595, 598 (1977); Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S., at 130. In essence, the Court has considered motivation relevant to the ultimate evaluation if the prosecution offers evidence of motivation. In this case the trial judge gave a pandering instruction to which the jury could advert if it found “this to be a close case” under the three part Roth-Memoirs test. This was not a so-called finding instruction which removed the jury’s discretion; rather it permitted the jury to consider the touting descriptions along with the materials themselves to determine whether they were intended to appeal to the recipient’s prurient interest in sex, whether they were “commercial exploitation of erotica solely for the sake of their prurient appeal,” Ginzburg, supra, at 466, if indeed the evidence admitted of any other purpose. And while it is true the Government offered no extensive evidence of the methods of production, editorial goals, if any, methods of operation, or means of delivery other than the mailings and the names, locations, and occupations of the recipients, the evidence was sufficient to trigger the Ginzburg pandering instruction. E. Exclusion of Comparison Evidence At trial petitioner proffered, and the trial judge rejected, two films which were said to have had considerable popular and commercial success when displayed in Los Angeles and elsewhere around the country. He proffered this assertedly comparable material as evidence that materials as explicit as his had secured community tolerance. Apparently the theory was that display of such movies had altered the level of community tolerance. On appeal the Court of Appeals began an inquiry into whether the comparison evidence should have been admitted. It held that exclusion of the evidence was proper as to the printed materials; but it abandoned the inquiry when, in reliance on the so-called concurrent-sentence doctrine, it concluded that even if the comparison evidence had been improperly excluded as to the count involving petitioner's film, the sentence would not be affected. It therefore exercised its discretion not to pass on the admissibility of the comparison evidence and hence did not review the conviction on the film count. However, the sentences on the 11 counts were not in fact fully concurrent; petitioner’s 11 prison terms of four years each were concurrent but the $500 fines on each of the counts were cumulative, totaling $5,500, so that a separate fine of $500 was imposed on the film count. Petitioner thus had at least a pecuniary interest in securing review of his conviction on each of the counts. In light of our disposition of the case the issue of admissibility of the comparison evidence is not before us, and we leave it to the Court of Appeals to decide whether or to what extent such evidence is relevant to a jury’s evaluation of community standards. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. Title 18 U. S. C. § 1461 (1976 ed.) declares, in essence, that obscene materials are nonmailable and the Postal Service may not be used to convey them. It provides for fines and imprisonment upon conviction for its violation. Two of the 11 paragraphs of the stipulation, corresponding to the evidence relating to the 11 charges, do not recite that petitioner knew the contents of those two particular mailings. Neither party has made an issue of this apparent oversight and we believe it is without significance. Indeed, confusion over this issue might have been foreseen in light of Mr. Justice Harlan’s separate opinion in Roth and its companion case, Alberts v. California. He observed that the correctness of the charge in Roth was not before the Court, but- must be assumed correct. It was the constitutionality of the statute which was being decided. 354 U. S., at 499 n. 1, 507 n. 8. Simultaneously, he said that he “agree[d] with the Court, of course, that the books must be judged as a whole and in relation to the normal adult reader,” id., at 502 (emphasis added; referring to Alberts), but the “charge [in Roth] fail [ed] to measure up to the standards which I understand the Court to approve . . . .” Id., at 507. The trial judge tried to accommodate petitioner’s demand that he be tried under Roth-Memoirs, and gave almost precisely the same instruction in this case as had apparently been approved in Roth. During voir dire, in response to a prospective juror’s question, and after a bench conference with counsel for both sides, the District Judge said, “[I]n no way does [the case] involve any distribution of material of any kind to children, and that the evidence will, that there will be a stipulation even that there has been no exposure of any of this evidence to children.” Though the stipulation did not specifically state no children were involved, it could be so inferred upon reading it. The Government does not contend otherwise. This rejected standard for judging obscenity was first articulated in The Queen v. Hicklin, [1868] L. R. 3 Q. B. 360. Sobeloff, Insanity and the Criminal Law: From McNaghten to Durham, and Beyond, 41 A. B. A. J. 793, 796 (1955). The validity of the concurrent-sentence doctrine is not challenged here. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 791 (1969). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

C

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. The judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina is reversed. Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545 (1967). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Burton delivered the opinion of the Court. The principal question here presented is whether the New York State Education Law, on its face or as here construed and applied, violates the Constitution of the United States by authorizing the suspension from practice, for six months, of a physician because he has been convicted, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, of failing to produce, before a Committee of the United States House of Representatives, certain papers subpoenaed by that Committee. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that it does not. In 1945, the Committee of the United States House of Representatives, known as the Committee on Un-Amer-ican Activities, was authorized to make investigations of “the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States.” In 1946, in the course of that investigation, the Committee subpoenaed Dr. Edward K. Barsky, appellant herein, who was then the national chairman and a member of the executive board of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, to produce “all books, ledgers, records and papers relating to the receipt and disbursement of money by or on account of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee or any subsidiary or any subcommittee thereof, together with all correspondence and memoranda of communications by any means whatsoever with persons in foreign countries for the period from January 1, 1945, to March 29, 1946.” Similar subpoenas were served on the executive secretary and the other members of the executive board of the Refugee Committee. Appellant appeared before the Congressional Committee but, pursuant to advice of counsel and the action of his executive board, he and the other officers of the Refugee Committee failed and refused to produce the subpoenaed papers. In 1947, appellant, the executive secretary and several members of the executive board of the Refugee Committee were convicted by a jury, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, of violating R. S. § 102, as amended, 2 U. S. C. § 192, by failing to produce the subpoenaed papers. Appellant was sentenced to serve six months in jail and pay $500. See United States v. Bryan, 72 F. Supp. 58; United States v. Barsky, 72 F. Supp. 165. In 1948, this judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Barsky v. United States, 83 U. S. App. D. C. 127, 167 F. 2d 241, and certiorari was denied, 334 U. S. 843. In 1950, a rehearing was denied. Two Justices noted their dissents, and two did not participate. 339 U. S. 971. Appellant served his sentence, being actually confined five months. Appellant was a physician who practiced his profession in New York under a license issued in 1919. However, in 1948, following the affirmance of his above-mentioned conviction, charges were filed against him with the Department of Education of the State of New York by an inspector of that department. This was done under § 6515 of the Education Law, seeking disciplinary action pursuant to subdivision 2 (b) of § 6514 of that law: “2. The license or registration of a practitioner of medicine, osteopathy or physiotherapy may be revoked, suspended or annulled or such practitioner reprimanded or disciplined in accordance with the provisions and procedure of this article upon decision after due hearing in any of the following cases: “(b) That a physician, osteopath or physiotherapist has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction, either within or without this state, of a crime; or . . . .” In 1951, after filing an amended answer, appellant was given an extended hearing before a subcommittee of the Department’s Medical Committee on Grievances. The three doctors constituting the subcommittee made a written report of their findings, determination and recommendation, expressly taking into consideration the five months during which appellant had been separated from his practice while confined in jail, and also the testimony and letters submitted in support of his character. They recommended finding him guilty as charged and suspending him from practice for three months. The ten doctors constituting the full Grievance Committee unanimously found appellant guilty as charged. They also, adopted the findings, determination and recommendation of their subcommittee, except that, by a vote of six to four, they fixed appellant’s suspension at six months. Promptly thereafter, the Committee on Discipline of the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York held a further hearing at which appellant appeared in person and by counsel. This committee consisted of two lawyers and one doctor. After reviewing the facts and issues, it filed a detailed report recommending that, while appellant was guilty as charged, his license be not suspended and that he merely be censured and reprimanded. The Board of Regents, however, returned to and sustained the determination of the Medical Committee on Grievances, and suspended appellant’s license for six months. Appellant sought a review of this determination, under § 6515 of the Education Law, supra, and Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Act, Gilbert-Bliss’ N. Y. Civ. Prac., Vol. 6B, 1944, §§ 1283-1306. The proceeding was instituted in the Supreme Court for the County of Albany and transferred to the Appellate Division, Third Department. That court confirmed the order of the Board of Regents. In re Barsky, 279 App. Div. 1117, 112 N. Y. S. 2d 778, and see 279 App. Div. 447, 111 N. Y. S. 2d 393, and 279 App. Div. 1101, 112 N. Y. S. 2d 780, 781. The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, affirmed. 305 N. Y. 89, 111 N. E. 2d 222. That court allowed an appeal to this Court and amended its remittitur by adding the following: “Upon the appeals herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Federal Constitution, viz., whether sections 6514 and 6515 of the Education Law, as construed and applied here, are violative of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals held that the rights of the petitioners under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States had not been violated or denied.” 305 N. Y. 691, 112 N. E. 2d 773. We noted probable jurisdiction, The Chief Justice not participating at that time. 346 U. S. 807, 801. That appellant was convicted of a violation of R. S. § 102, as amended, 2 U. S. C. § 192, in a court of competent jurisdiction is settled. In the New York courts, appellant argued that a violation of that section of the federal statutes was not a crime under the law of New York and that, accordingly, it was not a “crime” within the meaning of § 6514-2 (b) of the New York Education Law. He argued that his conviction, therefore, did not afford the New York Board of Regents the required basis for suspending his license. That issue was settled adversely to him by the Court of Appeals of New York and that court’s interpretation of the state statute is conclusive here. He argues that § 6514-2 (b) is unconstitutionally vague. As interpreted by the New York courts, the provision is extremely broad in that it includes convictions for any crime in any court of competent jurisdiction within or without New York State. This may be stringent and harsh but it is not vague. The professional standard is clear. The discretion left to enforcing officers is not one of defining the offense. It is merely that of matching the measure of the discipline to the specific case. A violation of R. S. § 102, as amended, 2 U. S. C. § 192, is expressly declared by Congress to be a misdemeanor. It is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than twelve months. See note 2, supra. For its violation appellant received a sentence of one-half the maximum and served five months in jail. There can be no doubt that appellant was convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction of a crime within the meaning of the New York statute. It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its borders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state’s police power. The state’s discretion in that field extends naturally to the regulation of all professions concerned with health. In Title VIII of its Education Law, the State of New York regulates many fields of professional practice, including medicine, osteopathy, physiotherapy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, nursing, podiatry and optometry. New York has had long experience with the supervision of standards of medical practice by representatives of that profession exercising wide discretion as to the discipline to be applied. It has established detailed procedures for investigations, hearings and reviews with ample opportunity for the accused practitioner to have his case thoroughly considered and reviewed. Section 6514, as a whole, demonstrates the broad field of professional conduct supervised by the Medical Committee on Grievances of the Department of Education and the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York. In the present instance, the violation of § 6514-2 (b) is obvious. The real problem for the state agencies is that of the appropriate disciplinary action to be applied. The practice of medicine in New York is lawfully prohibited by the State except upon the conditions it imposes. Such practice is a privilege granted by the State under its substantially plenary power to fix the terms of admission. The issue is not before us but it has not been questioned that the State could make it a condition of admission to practice that applicants shall not have been convicted of a crime in a court of competent jurisdiction either within or without the State of New York. It could at least require a disclosure of such convictions as a condition of admission and leave it to a competent board to determine, after opportunity for a fair hearing, whether the convictions, if any, were of such a date and nature as to justify denial of admission to practice in the light of all material circumstances before the board. It is equally clear that a state’s legitimate concern for maintaining high standards of professional conduct extends beyond initial licensing. Without continuing supervision, initial examinations afford little protection. Appellant contends, however, that the standard which New York has adopted exceeds reasonable supervision and deprives him of property rights in his license and his established practice, without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He argues that New York’s suspension of his license because of his conviction in a foreign jurisdiction, for an offense not involving moral turpitude and not criminal under the law of New York, so far transcends that State’s legitimate concern in professional standards as to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. We disagree and hold that New York’s governmental discretion is not so restricted. This statute is readily distinguishable from one which would require the automatic termination of a professional license because of some criminal conviction of its holder. Realizing the importance of high standards of character and law observance on the part of practicing physicians, the State has adopted a flexible procedure to protect the public against the practice of medicine by those convicted of many more kinds and degrees of crime than it can well list specifically. It accordingly has sought to attain its justifiable end by making the conviction of any crime a violation of its professional medical standards, and then leaving it to a qualified board of doctors to determine initially the measure of discipline to be applied to the offending practitioner. Section 6515 of the New York Education Law thus meets the charge of unreasonableness. All charges are passed upon by a Committee on Grievances of the department. That committee consists of ten licensed physicians, appointed by the Board of Regents. The term of each member is five years. They serve without compensation. Three are “members of conspicuous professional standing” appointed upon the board’s own nomination. § 6515-2. The others are appointed from lists of nominees submitted respectively by the New York State Medical, Homeopathic and Osteopathic Societies. Charges must be filed in writing and a subcommittee of three or more members hears and reports on them. At least ten days’ notice of a hearing is required and opportunity is afforded the accused to appear personally, or by counsel, with the right to produce witnesses and evidence on his own behalf, to cross-examine witnesses, to examine evidence produced against him and to have subpoenas issued by the committee. The subcommittee transmits its report, findings and recommendation, together with a transcript of evidence, to the Committee on Grievances. That committee may take further testimony. It determines the merit of the charges and, if the practitioner is found guilty by a unanimous verdict, the record, together with the findings and determination of the committee, is transmitted to the Board of Regents. That board, “after due hearing,” may accept or modify the committee’s recommendation, or find the practitioner not guilty and dismiss the charges. § 6515-7. “The committee on grievances shall not be bound by the laws of evidence in the conduct of its proceedings, but the determination shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same.” § 6515-5. If the accused is found guilty, he may institute proceedings for review under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, returnable before the Appellate Division of the Third Judicial Department. The above provisions, on their face, are well within the degree of reasonableness required to constitute due process of law in a field so permeated with public responsibility as that of health. The statutory procedure as above outlined has been meticulously followed in this case and no objection is made on that score. Appellant, nevertheless, complains that, as construed and applied by the Medical Committee on Grievances and its subcommittee, his hearing violated the due process of law required by the Fourteenth Amendment. He contends that evidence was introduced which was immaterial and prejudicial and that the committee based its determination upon that evidence. He contends, in effect, that the committee reached its determination without “sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same,” thus exceeding its statutory authority. He claims further that the committee acted capriciously and arbitrarily upon immaterial and prejudicial evidence, thus not only exceeding its statutory authority but depriving him of his property without due process of law. The state courts have determined that the hearing did not violate the statute and, accordingly, we are concerned only with the constitutional question. The claim is that immaterial and prejudicial evidence of the alleged subversive activities of the Refugee Committee was introduced and relied upon. Emphasis is given to evidence that the Refugee Committee had been placed on the Attorney General’s list of subversive or Communistic organizations. To emphasize the prejudicial character of this testimony, appellant refers to the fact that, at the time of the subcommittee hearing, litigation involving such list was pending in the courts and had resulted in a decision adverse to appellant, whereas that decision subsequently was set aside by this Court. The State’s answer to these claims is that such testimony was invited by appellant’s own testimony as to the activities of the Refugee Committee. The State shows also that while such evidence was not necessary to establish appellant’s violation of the federal statute as to the subpoenaed papers, it was material and admissible to assist the Committee on Grievances and the other agencies in determining the appropriate disciplinary measures to be applied to appellant under the state law. Appellant recognized this materiality by endeavoring to use evidence as to the Refugee Committee’s charitable activities to justify and excuse his failure to produce the subpoenaed papers. We find nothing sufficient to sustain a conclusion that the Board of Regents or the recommending committees made an arbitrary or capricious decision or relied upon irrelevant evidence. The report made by the original subcommittee of three that heard the evidence indicates that it was not influenced by the character of the Refugee Committee. It said: “We do not feel that we are now concerned, nor would we be able to determine, whether the books and records of that Committee would disclose whether the Committee was completely philanthropic in character, or whether it was engaged in subversive activities.” The painstaking complete review of the evidence and the issues by the Committee on Discipline of the Board of Regents demonstrates a high degree of unbiased objectivity. Before the final action of the Board of Regents, the Committee on Discipline in its report to that board noted that— “After the hearing below and the determination of the Medical Committee on Grievances, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed an order of the District Court dismissing a complaint by the Refugee Committee in an action by it for declaratory and injunctive relief (Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, Attorney General, 341 U. S. 123), some of the majority justices going on the ground that a determination of this kind could not constitutionally be made without a hearing and opportunity to offer proof and disproof. In view of this decision, no evidentiary weight can be given in the present proceeding to the listing by the Attorney General.” That committee thus recognized the existence of a valid basis for disciplinary action but found “no valid basis for discipline beyond the statutory minimum of censure and reprimand.” With this recommendation before the Board of Regents, we see no reason to conclude that the board disregarded it or acted arbitrarily, capriciously or through prejudice and deprived appellant of due process of law. The board made no specific findings. It accepted and sustained the unanimous determination of the Medical Committee on Grievances, which was that appellant was guilty. Then, in compliance with the recommendation of that committee, it fixed the measure of discipline at a six months’ suspension of appellant’s registration as a physician. The Court has considered the other points raised by appellant but finds no substantial federal constitutional objection in them, even assuming that they are before us as having been considered by the Court of Appeals, although not mentioned in its opinion or the amendment to its remittitur. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, accordingly, is Affirmed. McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, Education Law, §§ 6514, 6515. The conviction was for violating R. S. § 102, as amended, 52 Stat. 942, 2 U. S. C. § 192: “Sec. 102. Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.” “The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (1) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle, of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.” 91 Cong. Rec. 10, 15. This was carried into the Rules of the House as Rule XI (q) (2), 60 Stat. 823, 828. United States v. Bryan, 72 F. Supp. 58, 60. For related litigation, see United, States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323; United States v. Fleischman, 339 U. S. 349; Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123. The committee said: “Since violation of the Federal statute which Respondent has been convicted of violating involves inherently no moral turpitude, and since there has been no impeachment by evidence of Respondent’s explanation (sufficient if unimpeached) of his failure to produce the subpoenaed documents, we find in the record no valid basis for discipline beyond the statutory minimum of censure and reprimand; and we therefore recommend that Respondent’s license be not suspended, as the Medical Committee on Grievances has recommended, but that he be censured and reprimanded.” The order suspending appellant’s license was issued by the Commissioner of Education in 1951, but its effect was stayed by the New York Court of Appeals, pending an appeal to this Court. 305 N. Y. 691, 112 N. E. 2d 773. At about the same time, the board fixed at three months the suspension of the license of another doctor who was a member of the executive board of the Refugee Committee and who had been convicted with appellant. It also directed that a third doctor, who was a member of the same board, be censured and reprimanded. Each such determination was confirmed by the New York courts simultaneously with the confirmations relating to appellant. See 279 App. Div. 447, 111 N. Y. S. 2d 393; 279 App. Div. 1101, 112 N. Y. S. 2d 780, 781; 279 App. Div. 1117, 112 N. Y. S. 2d 778; and 305 N. Y. 89, 111 N. E. 2d 222. The subsequent designation of certain other contempts of Congress as federal “crimes” (18 U. S. C. §402) does not prevent this misdemeanor from being a crime within the meaning of the New York statute. “§ 6514. Revocation of certificates; annulment of registrations “1. Whenever any practitioner of medicine, osteopathy or physiotherapy shall be convicted of a felony, as defined in section sixty-five hundred two of this article, the registration of the person so convicted may be annulled and his license revoked by the department. It shall be the duty of the clerk of the court wherein such conviction takes place to transmit a certificate of such conviction to the department. Upon reversal of such judgment by a court having jurisdietion, the department, upon receipt of a certified copy of such judgment or order of reversal, shall vacate its order of revocation or annulment. “2. The license or registration of a practitioner of medicine, osteopathy or physiotherapy may be revoked, suspended or annulled or such practitioner reprimanded or disciplined in accordance with the provisions and procedure of this article upon decision after due hearing in any of the following cases: “(a) That a physician, osteopath or physiotherapist is guilty of fraud or deceit in the practice of medicine, osteopathy or physiotherapy or in his admission to the practice of medicine, osteopathy or physiotherapy; or “(b) That a physician, osteopath or physiotherapist has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction, either within or without this state, of a crime; or “(c) That a physician, osteopath or physiotherapist is an habitual drunkard, or is or has been addicted to the use of morphine, cocaine or other drugs having similar effect, or has become insane; or “(d) That a physician, osteopath or physiotherapist offered, undertook or agreed to cure or treat disease by a secret method, procedure, treatment or medicine or that he can treat, operate and prescribe for any human condition by a method, means or procedure which he refuses to divulge upon demand to the committee on grievances; or that he has advertised for patronage by means of handbills, posters, circulars, letters, stereopticon slides, motion pictures, radio, or magazines; or “(e) That a physician, osteopath or physiotherapist did undertake or engage in any manner or by any ways or means whatsoever to perform any criminal abortion or to procure the performance of the same by another or to violate section eleven hundred forty-two of the penal law, or did give information as to where or by whom such a criminal abortion might be performed or procured. “(f) That a physician, osteopath or physiotherapist has directly or indirectly requested, received or participated in the division, transference, assignment, rebate, splitting or refunding of a fee for, or has directly or indirectly requested, received or profited by means of a credit or other valuable consideration as a commission, discount or gratuity in connection with the furnishing of medical, surgical or dental care, diagnosis or treatment or service, including x-ray examination and treatment, or for or in connection with the sale, rental, supplying or furnishing of clinical laboratory services or supplies, x-ray laboratory services or supplies, inhalation therapy service or equipment, ambulance service, hospital or medical supplies, physiotherapy or other therapeutic service or equipment, artificial limbs, teeth or eyes, orthopedic or surgical appliances or supplies, optical appliances, supplies or equipment, devices for aid of hearing, drugs, medication or medical supplies or any other goods, services or supplies prescribed for medical diagnosis, care or treatment under this chapter, except payment, not to exceed thirty-three and one-third per centum of any fee received for x-ray examination, diagnosis or treatment, to any hospital furnishing facilities for such examination, diagnosis or treatment. . . .” See Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263, 299. A conviction for a crime which, under the law of New York, would amount to a felony has been given such an automatic effect in some instances. See McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, Education Law, § 6613-12, as to dentists; and McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, Judiciary Law, § 90-4, as to attorneys. Cf. § 6514-1, note 9, supra, as to physicians. See In re Raab, 156 Ohio St. 158, 101 N. E. 2d 294. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123. The character of the activities of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee was placed in issue by appellant’s amended answer. He volunteered much testimony as to the benevolent and charitable programs in which the committee participated and he introduced many exhibits on the same subject. Reference to the Attorney General’s list of subversives developed naturally during the resulting cross-examination of appellant. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

C

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Whittaker delivered the opinion of thé Court. Acting without a warrant but with the consent of the petitioner’s landlord, Georgia law enforcement officers entered — through an unlocked window- — and searched petitioner’s rented house, in his absence, and there found and seized an unregistered “distillery” and 1,300 gallons of “mash.” Soon afterward petitioner was indicted in the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia for violations of the federal liquor laws. He promptly moved the court for an order suppressing the use of the seized items as evidence at his impending criminal trial on the ground that they were obtained by an unlawful search and seizure. After hearing evidence, the court held that the search and seizure were lawful under federal standards and denied the motion. At the subsequent trial, the evidence sought to be suppressed was offered and received, over petitioner’s renewed objections. Upon that evidence, the jury found petitioner guilty, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment for a year and a day. On appeal, the Court' of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 272 F. 2d 70. To examine petitioner’s claim that the courts below violated the standards governing admissibility of timely challenged evidence in federal courts, we granted certiorari. 363 U. S. 836. The relevant evidence is not controverted. It shows the following: One Bridgaman, and another, owned a dwelling house in a wooded area near the Macon, Georgia, airport, which they commonly rented through a rental agency. Understanding that the house had been rented to a new tenant, Bridgaman, on Sunday, February 16, 1958, went to the house for the purpose of inviting the tenants to attend church. Upon arrival he noted a strong “odor of mash” about the house. There was no response to his knock, and, although he tried to do so, he was unable to see into the house. He then returned to his home and, by telephone, advised the local police department of his observations. Soon afterward two local police officers, Harbin and Chance, arrived at Bridgaman’s home, and the three then went to the rented house. They noticed a strong odor of “whiskey mash” coming from the house. After their knock at the door failed to produce a response, they walked around the house and tried to look into it but were unable to do so because the shades were down. They found that all of the windows were locked, save one in the bathroom. The officers testified that Bridgaman told them “to go in the window and see what[’s] what in there.” Bridgaman’s version of what he said was: “If it’s what I think it is, what it smells like, yes, you can have my permission to go in.” Thereupon they opened the bathroom window and, with the assistance of Bridgaman and Chance, Harbin entered the house through that opening. Upon entering the house he saw a complete and sizable distillery and 1,300 gallons of mash located in the living room. Apart from some accessories, containers and firewood, there was nothing else in the house. Harbin then called to Chance that he had found a large still and asked him “to go get some help.” Chance immediately left — dropping Bridgaman at his home — -to call the federal officers. While the federal officers were en route to the house, petitioner drove up, unlocked the front door, entered the house and was immediately arrested by Harbin. The federal officers soon arrived and took custody of petitioner. They also saved samples of the mash, took various pictures of the scene and then destroyed the still and its contents. Neither the state nor the federal officers had any warrant of any kind. Although the decisions below were rendered prior to this Court’s decision in Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, the doctrine of that case is not here involved, as the lower courts explicitly rested their determinations on the ground that the search and seizure, though made by state officers, were valid under federal standards. Hence, the only question here is whether those determinations were correct. We believe that they were not. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,.papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Until Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, this Court had never directly decided, but had always assumed, “that one’s house cannot lawfully be searched without a search warrant, except as an incident to a lawful arrest therein” (id., at 32), but that case explicitly decided that. “Belief, however well founded, that an article sought is concealed in a dwelling house furnishes no justification for a search of that place without a warrant. And such searches are . . . unlawful notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause.” Id., at 33. At least two decisions of this Court are closely relevant. Taylor v. United States, 286 U. S. 1, and Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10. In the Taylor case, Federal agents had received “complaints” respecting activities at a certain garage in Baltimore and decided to “investigate.” As they “approached the garage they got the odor of whiskey coming from within.” Looking through a small opening, they saw a number of cardboard cases. Although they had no warrant of any kind, they “broke the fastening upon a door, entered and found one hundred twenty-two cases of whiskey. No one was within the place and there was no reason to think otherwise. While the search progressed, Taylor came from his house and was put under arrest. The search and seizure were undertaken with the hope of securing evidence upon which to indict and convict him.” Id., at 5. In condemning that search and seizure, this Court said that the officers “had abundant opportunity [to obtain a warrant] and to proceed in an orderly way even after the odor had emphasized their suspicions; there was no probability of material change in the situation during the time necessary to secure such warrant. Moreover, a short period of watching would have prevented any such possibility. . . . Prohibition officers may rely on a distinctive odor as a physical fact indicative of possible crime; but its presence alone does not strip the owner of a building of constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search.” The Court concluded that “in any view, the action of the agents was inexcusable and the seizure unreasonable. The evidence was obtained unlawfully and should have been suppressed.” Id., at 6. In the Johnson case, state narcotic agents, while in the hallway of a hotel, recognized a strong odor of burning opium coming from a particular room. Without knowing who was occupying the room, they knocked and, after some delay, the door was opened. The agents then entered the room and told the occupant “to consider [herself] under arrest because we are going to search the room.” The search produced incriminating opium and smoking apparatus which was warm from recent use. The District Court refused to suppress that evidence and admitted it over defendant’s objection at the trial and she was convicted. In reversing, this Court said: “The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate's disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people’s homes secure only in the discretion of police officers. . . . The right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is also a grave concern, not only to the individual but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government enforcement agent. “There are exceptional circumstances in which, on balancing the need for effective law enforcement against the right of privacy, it may be contended that a magistrate’s warrant for search may be dispensed with. But this is not such a case.” 333 U. S., at 13-15. Here, as in that case, “No reason is offered for not obtaining a search warrant except the inconvenience to the officers and some slight delay necessary to prepare papers ■ and present the evidence to a magistrate. These are never very convincing reasons and, in these circumstances, certainly are not enough to by-pass the constitutional requirement. No suspect was fleeing or likely to take flight. The search was of permanent premises, not of a movable vehicle. No evidence or contraband was threatened with removal or destruction, except perhaps the fumes which we suppose in time would disappear.” 333 U. S., at 15. We think it must be concluded here, as it was in Johnson, that “If the officers in this case were excused from the constitutional duty of presenting their evidence to a magistrate, it is difficult to think of a case in which it should be required.” 333 U. S., at 15. See also Lustig v. United States, 338 U. S. 74; United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56; United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48; Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493. Actually, the Government does not contend in this Court that this search and seizure, as such, met the standards of the Fourth Amendment. Instead, it says: “Our position is that when the landlord, paying a social call, found good reason to believe that the leased premises were being wasted and used for criminal purposes, he had authority to enter as a matter of right and to bring officers with him for this purpose.” It says that, under the common law, a landlord has an absolute right to enter the demised premises “to view waste,” and that he should be able to exercise that right through law enforcement officers to whom he has delegated his authority. But it cites no Georgia or other case holding that a landlord, in the absence of an express covenant so permitting, has a right forcibly to enter the demised premises without the consent of the tenant “to view waste.” And, so far as our research discloses, no Georgia case so holds. The only relevant authority cited by the Government is a statement from Tiffany, Landlord and Tenant (1910 ed.), § 3. b. (2), p. 9, .that “It has also been said that [the landlord] may enter to 'view waste,’ that is, to determine whether waste has been committed, provided at least that this does not involve the breaking of windows or doors . ...” (Emphasis added.) There are several answers to this contention. First, here the landlord ' and the officers forced open a window to gain entry to the premises. Second, “their purpose in entering was [not to view waste but] to search for distilling equipment . . . .” Jones v. United States, supra, at 500. Third, to uphold such an entry, search and seizure “without a warrant would reduce the [Fourth] Amendment to a nullity and leave [tenants’] homes secure only in the discretion of [landlords].” Johnson v. United States, supra, at 14. Moreover, “it is unnecessary and ill-advised to import into the law surrounding the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures subtle distinctions, developed and refined by the common law in evolving the body of private property law which, more than almost any other branch of law, has been shaped by distinctions whose validity is largely historical. . . . [W]e ought not to bow to them in the fair administration of the criminal law. To do so would not comport with our justly proud claim of the procedural protections accorded to those charged with crime.” Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 266-267. After pointing to the fact that a Georgia statute (Title 58 Ga. Code § 106) provides that the unlawful manufacture of distilled liquor on rented premises shall work a forfeiture of the rights of the tenant, at the option of the landlord, and that another (Title 58 Ga. Code § 109) provides that use of a structure for that purpose constitutes a nuisance, the Government argues that, inasmuch as he used the demised premises for the illicit manufacture of distilled liquor, petitioner had forfeited all rights in the premises, and the landlord thus acquired the right forcibly to enter to abate the nuisance, and that he could and did delegate that right to the officers. But it is clear that, before the officers made the. forcible entry, the landlord did not know that the premises were being used for the manufacture of liquor, nor had he exercised his statutory option to forfeit the tenancy for such a cause. And the Supreme Court of Georgia has held that a proceeding to abate a nuisance under § 109 “must proceed for the public on information filed by the solicitor-general of the circuit.” Kilgore v. Paschall, 202 Ga. 416, 417, 43 S. E. 2d 520, 521. It follows that this search was unlawful, and since evidence obtained through that search was admitted at the trial, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be Reversed. Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result. 26 U. S. C. §§ 5601, 5606. Only ancient English cases are cited in support of the text. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. We took this case to decide whether States may tax interest income derived from repurchase agreements involving federal securities. If the income that taxpayers earn by participating in such agreements constitutes interest on federal securities, then the taxation violates 31 U. S. C. § 3124(a), which exempts interest on “obligations of the United States Government” from taxation by States. On the other hand, if that income constitutes interest on loans to a private party, the taxation is not prohibited by the statute. With respect to the repurchase agreements at issue in this case, we conclude that for purposes of § 3124(a), the interest earned by taxpayers is interest on loans to a private party, not interest on federal securities. Accordingly, we hold that § 3124(a) does not prohibit States from taxing such income. I Respondent is a Nebraska resident who owns shares in two mutual funds, the Trust for Short-Term U. S. Government Securities and the Trust for U. S. Treasury Obligations (Trusts). The Trusts earn a portion of their income by participating in “repurchase agreements” that involve debt securities issued by the United States Government and its agencies (federal securities). A typical repurchase agreement used by the Trusts, see App. 65-81, establishes a two-part transaction, commonly called a “repo,” between a party who holds federal securities and seeks cash (Seller-Borrower) and a party who has available cash and seeks to earn interest on its idle funds (in this case, the Trusts). In part one of the repo, the Seller-Borrower “transfers” specified federal securities to the Trusts on the records of the Federal Reserve System’s commercial book-entry system. Simultaneously, the Trusts transfer a specified amount of cash to the Seller-Borrower’s bank account. In part two of the transaction — which occurs at a later date fixed by agreement or, in the absence of any agreement, upon demand of either party — the Trusts “deliver” the federal securities back to the Seller-Borrower on the Federal Reserve’s records, and the Seller-Borrower credits the Trusts’ bank account in an amount equal to the sum of the original cash transfer plus “interest” at an agreed-upon rate. This interest rate bears no relation to the yield on the underlying federal securities — either when they were issued by the United States Government or when they later came into the hands of the Seller-Borrower — but is based instead on the current market rate paid on investments with maturities equal to the term of the repo, not to the original or current maturities of the underlying securities. After deducting administrative costs, the Trusts distribute this interest income to respondent in proportion to his ownership of shares in the Trusts. The State of Nebraska generally taxes interest income, but it does not tax “interest or dividends received by the owner of obligations of the United States . . . but exempt from state income taxes under the laws of the United States.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2716(l)(a) (Supp. 1994). For purposes of Nebraska’s income tax law, if interest would be exempt from tax in the hands of the Trusts, then respondent’s proportionate share of such interest will be exempt. § 77-2716(l)(b). A decade ago petitioner considered whether the interest income derived from repurchase agreements involving federal securities and then distributed to respondent and similarly situated individuals was subject to Nebraska’s income tax. Petitioner concluded that it was. Neb. Rev. Rul. 22-85-1, Brief for Petitioner 4-5, n. 1. In 1988, respondent brought a declaratory judgment action in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska, asking that Revenue Ruling 22-85-1 be declared invalid as contrary to 31 U. S. C. § 3124(a) and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The District Court granted the requested relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed, concluding that “the income received by [respondent] from, repo transactions executed by the [T]rusts involving federal, securities is exempt from state taxation under §3124.”’ Loewenstein v. State, 244 Neb. 82, 90, 504 N. W. 2d 800, 805 (1993). As the Nebraska Supreme Court itself acknowledged, see id., at 88-90, 504 N. W. 2d, at 804-805, several state courts have reached directly contrary conclusions, and two Federal Courts of Appeals have ruled that interest income derived from repos involving municipal bonds is not exempt from federal taxation under § 103(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 510 U. S. 1176 (1994), and we now reverse. II We begin with the text of 31 U. S. C. § 3124(a). It provides in relevant part: “[Obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax ....” Under this provision, a state tax may consider neither the federal “obligation” itself nor the “interest on the obligation.” The obligation itself is “considered” when its value is “taken into account, or included in the accounting,” Ameri can Bank & Trust Co. v. Dallas County, 463 U. S. 855, 862 (1983), in computing the taxable value of a taxpayer’s assets or net worth for the purpose of a property tax or the like. See, e. g., First Nat. Bank of Atlanta v. Bartow County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 470 U. S. 583, 585-586 (1985) (property tax on bank shares). By contrast, the interest on the obligation is “considered” when that interest is included in computing the taxpayer’s net income or earnings for the purpose of an income tax or the like. See, e. g., Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner, 459 U. S. 392, 393-394 (1983) (tax on net earnings of banks). By participating in repos involving federal securities, the Trusts (and thus respondent) earned interest income, and Nebraska’s income tax admittedly considered that interest in computing respondent’s taxable income. We must decide whether for purposes of § 3124(a) the interest earned by the Trusts from these repos is interest on “obligations of the United States Government” or interest on loans of cash from the Trusts to the Seller-Borrower. We conclude that it is the latter, and we accordingly hold that Nebraska’s taxation of the income derived by respondent from the repos does not violate § 3124(a). An investor may earn interest income from a federal security in one or both of two ways. First, the investor may receive periodic payments from the United States Government at the interest rate stated on the face of the security. Such payments are traditionally known as “coupon interest.” Second, the investor may acquire the security at a discount from the amount for which it will ultimately be redeemed by the Government at maturity. This discount is also considered interest for purposes of taxation. Although “discount interest” accrues during the term of the security, the investor does not receive it in cash until the security is redeemed or transferred to a third party. Our examination of the typical repurchase agreement used by the Trusts convinces us that they did not earn either kind of interest on federal securities. Certainly, none of the income the Trusts earn by participating in repos can be attributed to redemptions of the securities or payments of coupon interest by the Government: The Trusts must “pay over to [the Seller-Borrower] as soon as received all principal, interest and other sums paid by or on behalf of the issuer in respect of the Securities and collected by the [Trusts].” App. 69. Nor can we conclude that the Trusts receive discount interest when the federal securities are transferred back to the Seller-Borrower in part two of the repo. Under the typical repurchase agreement, any individual repo transaction may involve a mix of federal securities with varying maturities, and therefore varying yields. During the term of the repo, these securities earn discount interest based on their respective yields (and on whether they pay coupon interest). The Trusts, however, earn interest from the Seller-Borrower at an agreed-upon rate that is not based on any of these yields, or any combination of them. Thus, the interest that the Trusts earn by participating in the repo will bear no relation to the discount interest earned on federal securities during the same period. We conclude instead that for purposes of § 3124(a), the interest income earned by the Trusts is interest on loans from the Trusts to the Seller-Borrower, and that the federal securities are involved in the repo transactions as collateral for these loans. Several features of the repos lead to this conclusion. First, at the commencement of a repo, the Trusts pay the Seller-Borrower a fixed sum of money; at the repo’s termination, the Seller-Borrower repays that sum with “interest.” As explained above, this repo interest bears no relation to either the coupon interest paid or the discount interest accrued on the federal securities during the term of the repo. Second, if the Seller-Borrower defaults on its obligation to pay its debt, the Trusts may liquidate the federal securities. But like any lender who liquidates collateral, the Trusts may retain the proceeds of liquidation only up to the amount of the debt plus expenses; any excess must be paid to the Seller-Borrower. Moreover, if the proceeds are insufficient to satisfy the debt, the Trusts may recover the deficiency from the Seller-Borrower. Third, if the market value of the federal securities involved in the repo falls below 102% of the amount the Trusts originally paid to the Seller-Borrower, the latter must immediately deliver cash or additional securities to the Trusts to restore the value of the securities held by the Trusts to 102% of the original payment amount. On the other hand, if the market value of the securities rises above 102% of this amount, the Seller-Borrower may require the Trusts to return some of the securities to the Seller-Borrower. These provisions are consistent with a lender-borrower relationship in which a prudent lender desires to protect the value of its collateral, while a prudent borrower attempts to pledge as little collateral as possible. Fourth, the Seller-Borrower may, during the term of the repo, “substitute” federal securities of equal market value for the federal securities initially involved in the transaction. A lender, of course, is indifferent to the particular collateral pledged by the borrower, so long as that collateral has sufficient value and liquidity. The parties have stipulated that the Trusts (or their agents) take “Delivery” of the federal securities at the commencement of a repo. App. 63. But even this fact is consistent with understanding repos as loans of cash from the Trusts to the Seller-Borrower: “Delivery” of the securities perfects the Trusts’ security interests in their collateral. Under the most recent version of § 8-321(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code (U. C. C.), “[a] security interest in a security is enforceable and can attach only if it is transferred to the secured party ... pursuant to a provision of [§]8-313(1).” 2C U. L. A. 459 (1991). Section 8-313(l)(a) provides that transfer of a security interest in a security occurs when the secured party “acquires possession of a certificated security.” Id., at 402. Of course, possession of the federal securities allows the Trusts to effect an expeditious, nonjudicial liquidation of the securities if the Seller-Borrower defaults. Cf. U. C. C. §9-504(1), 3B U. L. A. 127 (1992). The ability to liquidate immediately is obviously critical in the context of repo transactions, which may have a lifespan of only a single day. Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that the interest income earned by the Trusts from repurchase agreements involving federal securities is not interest on “obligations of the United States Government.” For purposes of 31 U. S. C. § 3124(a), the income is instead interest on loans from the Trusts to the Seller-Borrower. Because § 3124(a) exempts only the former type of interest from state taxation, Nebraska did not violate that statute when it taxed respondent’s interest income. Ill Respondent offers two objections to this interpretation of § 3124(a). We find neither of them persuasive. A The typical repurchase agreement at issue in this case explicitly identifies the original transfer of the federal securities to the Trusts as a “sale” and the subsequent transfer back to the Seller-Borrower as a “repurchase.” Respondent maintains we should honor this characterization because the repos were structured by the Trusts and the Seller-Borrower as sales and repurchases for valid business and regulatory reasons independent of tax considerations. Respondent relies on our statement in Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U. S. 561, 583-584 (1978): “[W]here . . . there is a genuine multiple-party transaction with economic substance which is compelled or encouraged by business or regulatory realities, is imbued with tax-independent considerations, and is not shaped solely by tax-avoidance features that have meaningless labels attached, the Government should honor the allocation of rights and duties effectuated by the parties.” We do not believe it matters for purposes of § 3124(a) whether the repo is characterized as a sale and subsequent repurchase. A sale-repurchase characterization presumably would make the Trusts the “owners” of the federal securities during the term of the repo. But the dispositive question is whether the Trusts earned interest on “obligations of the United States Government,” not whether the Trusts “owned” such obligations. As respondent himself concedes, “[t]he concept of ‘ownership’ is simply not an issue under 31 U. S. C. § 3124.” Brief for Respondent 10. Even if it did matter how repos were characterized for purposes of § 3124(a), Frank Lyon Co. does not support respondent’s position. Whatever the language relied on by respondent may mean, our decision in that case to honor the taxpayer’s characterization of its transaction as a “sale-and-leaseback” rather than a “financing transaction” was founded on an examination of “the substance and economic realities of the transaction.” 435 U. S., at 582. This examination included identification of 27 specific facts. See id., at 582-583. The substance and economic realities of the Trusts’ repo transactions, as manifested in the specific facts discussed above, are that the Trusts do not receive either coupon interest or discount interest from federal securities by participating in repos. Rather, in economic reality, the Trusts receive interest on cash they have lent to the Seller-Borrower. Respondent does not specifically dispute this conclusion but argues that repos are characterized as ordinary sales and repurchases for purposes of federal securities, bankruptcy, and banking law as well as commercial and local government law. We need not examine the accuracy of these assertions, for we are not called upon in this case to interpret any of those bodies of law. Our decision today is an interpretation only of 31 U. S. C. § 3124(a) — not the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Bankruptcy Code, or any other body of law. B At oral argument, respondent advanced another argument against the interpretation of § 3124(a) adopted here: Although petitioner’s Revenue Ruling nominally acknowledges the right of the Seller-Borrower to claim the exemption granted by § 3124(a), Nebraska’s income tax scheme will not allow the Seller-Borrower to realize the full amount of the federal exemption. This would allegedly frustrate Congress’ purpose in granting the exemption. According to respondent, after the Seller-Borrower has subtracted from its taxable income any “interest or dividends received by [it as] the owner of obligations of the United States,” pursuant to subsection (a) of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2716(1) (Supp. 1994), it will then be forced to add back “any interest on indebtedness incurred to carry the [federal] obligations,” pursuant to subsection (e)(i) of §77-2716(1). Respondent conjectures that the interest paid by the Seller-Borrower to the Trusts in the course of repos may constitute just such interest. Respondent therefore hypothesizes that if the Seller-Borrower receives, for example, $100 in interest as the holder of federal securities and pays out $90 to the Trusts in the course of repos involving those securities, Nebraska might give the Seller-Borrower an income tax exemption worth only $10 ($100 minus $90), rather than the $100 exemption that Congress arguably intended. There is a short answer to respondent’s multilayered hypothesis: this case does not involve the construction or validity of Nebraska’s add-back rule as applied in the repo context. The Nebraska Supreme Court did not cite §77-2716(l)(e)(i) in its opinion, and we did not grant certiorari to consider that provision. IV Finally, respondent argues that Nebraska’s taxation of income from repos involving federal securities violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. First, respondent contends that Nebraska discriminates against federal obligations because it does not tax income from repos involving Nebraska’s own state and local obligations. Although Nebraska Revenue Ruling 22-85-1 concerns repos involving “federal government obligations” and does not mention their Nebraska counterparts, respondent has pointed to no statute, revenue ruling, or other manifestation of Nebraska policy treating “state” repos any different from “federal” repos for tax purposes. Second, respondent cites our decision in Rockford Life Ins. Co. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 482 U. S. 182, 190 (1987), in which we stated that “the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine ... is based on the proposition that the borrowing power is an essential aspect of the Federal Government’s authority and, just as the Supremacy Clause bars the States from directly taxing federal property, it also bars the States from taxing federal obligations in a manner which has an adverse effect on the United States’ borrowing ability.” According to respondent, undisputed expert testimony in the record establishes that the taxation at issue in this case will make it more difficult and expensive for the Federal Government to finance the national debt. This expert testimony essentially consists of a 1986 affidavit sworn by Peter D. Sternlight, a former official of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In our view, Stern-light’s affidavit has no relevance to this case. It concluded only that “an impairment of the repo market would make it less attractive for [government securities] dealers to perform [their] very useful . . . function [of underwriting a sizeable portion of Treasury securities], thus adding to Treasury interest costs.” App. 42. But the “impairment” that worried Sternlight would result “[i]f repurchase agreements were to lose their present characteristics of flexibility and liquidity,” or if repos became “unavailable” to certain kinds of public and private institutional investors. Id., at 42, 43. These possibilities might develop if repos were to be characterized as secured loans for purposes of federal bankruptcy and banking law or of commercial and local government law. Our decision today, however, says nothing about how repos should be characterized for those purposes. Disregarding the inapplicable Sternlight affidavit, we find no evidence in the record that the taxation at issue will impair the market in federal securities or otherwise impair the borrowing ability of the Federal Government. Rockford Life confirmed the rule that “‘when effort is made ... to establish the unconstitutional character of a particular tax by claiming its remote effect will be to impair the borrowing power of the government, courts . . . ought to have something more substantial to act upon than mere conjecture. The injury ought to be obvious and appreciable.’ ” 482 U. S., at 190, n. 10 (quoting Plummer v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115, 137-138 (1900)). Respondent has shown us no “obvious and appreciable” injury to the borrowing power of the United States Government as a result of Nebraska’s taxation of the repo income earned by the Trusts. Rather, he has given us “mere conjecture.” In these circumstances, we cannot justifiably conclude that Nebraska’s taxation of income derived from repos involving federal securities violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nebraska is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. A repurchase agreement is so called because the parties to the agreement identify part one of the transaction as a “sale” of federal securities from the Seller-Borrower to the Trusts and part two a “repurchase” of the securities by the Seller-Borrower from the Trusts. Because the accuracy of these labels is part of the dispute in this case, we use more neutral terms to describe the transaction. See Hammond Lead Products, Inc. v. State Tax Commissioners, 575 N. E. 2d 998 (Ind. 1991); Department of Revenue v. Page, 541 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. App. 1989); Capital Preservation Fund, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 145 Wis. 2d 841, 429 N. W. 2d 551 (App. 1988); Andras v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 154 Ill. App. 3d 37, 506 N. E. 2d 439 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 960 (1988). As Justice Caporale pointed out in dissent below, see 244 Neb., at 91-92, 504 N. W. 2d, at 806, at least five other state courts also have reached a result contrary to that of the majority. See Everett v. State Dept. of Revenue and Finance, 470 N. W. 2d 13 (Iowa 1991); Comptroller of the Treasury, Income Tax Div. v. First United Bank & Trust, 320 Md. 352, 578 A. 2d 192 (1990); Borg v. Department of Revenue of Oregon, 308 Ore. 34, 774 P. 2d 1099 (1989); Massman Constr. Co. v. Director of Revenue of Missouri, 765 S. W. 2d 592 (Mo. 1989); In re Sawyer Estate, 149 Vt. 541, 546 A. 2d 784 (1987). Accord, H. J. Heinz Co. v. Department of Treasury, 197 Mich. App. 210, 494 N. W. 2d 850 (1992) (distinguishing Matz v. Department of Treasury, 155 Mich. App. 778, 401 N. W. 2d 62 (1986) (per curiam)). See Union Planters Nat. Bank of Memphis v. United States, 426 F. 2d 115 (CA6), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 827 (1970); American Nat. Bank of Austin v. United States, 421 F. 2d 442 (CA5), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 819 (1970). Accord, First American Nat. Bank of Nashville v. United States, 467 F. 2d 1098 (CA6 1972) (per curiam). Cf. Citizens Nat. Bank of Waco v. United States, 213 Ct. Cl. 236, 248-251, 551 F. 2d 832, 839-840 (1977) (agreeing that these decisions were correct, but distinguishing them on the facts of the case). The Internal Revenue Service also has concluded that a taxpayer in the position of the Trusts who derives interest income by participating in repurchase agreements does not earn interest on the securities involved in those agreements. See Rev. Rul. 74-27, 1974-1 Cum. Bull. 24; Rev. Rul. 77-59,1977-1 Cum. Bull. 196; Rev. Rul. 79-108,1979-1 Cum. Bull. 75. For example, Treasury notes and bonds, which have maturities of at least one year, pay coupon interest on a semiannual basis and may be issued at discount, par (face amount), or premium, depending on market conditions. See 31 CFR §§ 356.5(b), (c), 356.30 (1994). Treasury bills, by contrast, have maturities of not more than one year, pay no coupon interest, and are always issued at a discount. See § 356.5(a). “For purposes of taxation the amount of discount at which Treasury bills are originally sold by the United States shall be considered to be interest.” §309.4. See generally M. Stigum, The Money Market 36-37 (3d ed. 1990) (hereinafter Stigum). The parties have also stipulated that delivery of the federal securities is effected “through the Federal Reserve book entry system.” App. 63. Although securities held in that system exist not in the form of certificates but only as entries in the records of a Federal Reserve bank, see generally Stigum 636-638, regulations issued by the Treasury Department and other federal agencies indulge in the fiction that transferees acquire possession of certificated securities. See, e.g., 31 CFR § 306.118(a) (1994) (transfer of Treasury notes and bonds); § 350.4(a) (transfer of Treasury bills). Of course, these regulations and their relationship to the U. C. C. are not before us here. It follows from our analysis that it is the Seller-Borrower who earns the interest on the federal securities during the pendency of the repo. Nebraska Revenue Ruling 22-85-1 concludes as much: “The interest earned on the United States government obligations remains the income of the [party] who submitted the securities as collateral for the loan.” Brief for Petitioner 4-5, n. 1. See also Brief for Federal Reserve Bank of New York as Amicus Curiae 9-10 (“The Sternlight Affidavit was filed by the New York Fed in 1986 as amicus curiae in [a case] which had nothing to do with state taxation of repo income.... Mr. Sternlight did not opine on the economic effect of state taxation of repo transaction income on [the market for] the underlying government securities”); Hearings on H. R. 2852 and H. R. 3418 before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., 106-107 (1984) (letter of Peter D. Sternlight) (“[W]hile the Federal Reserve has gone on record as favoring purchase-and-sale characterization of repurchase agreements, that statement is limited to a bankruptcy context and should not be taken as an endorsement of purchase-and-sale characterization for tax, accounting, or other purposes” (emphasis added)). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

J

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mk. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue here is whether in the circumstances present in this case the conduct of an undercover agent for a state law enforcement agency deprived respondent Bursey of his right to the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed him by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution or deprived him of due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. I This case began when respondent Bursey filed suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against petitioners Weatherford and Strom, respectively an undercover agent for and the head of the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division, asserting that the defendants had deprived him of certain constitutional rights. The case was tried without a jury. The following facts are taken from the District Court’s findings, which were not disturbed by the Court of Appeals. During the early morning hours of March 20, 1970, Bursey and Weatherford, along with two others, vandalized the offices of the Richland County Selective Service in Columbia, S. C. Police were advised of the incident by Weatherford, who, in order to maintain his undercover status and his capability of working on other current matters in that capacity, was arrested and charged along with Bursey. Weatherford was immediately released on bond and, continuing the masquerade, retained an attorney, Frank Taylor, Sr. Bursey, who was later released on bond, retained his own counsel, C. Rauch Wise. On two occasions thereafter and prior to trial, Weather-ford met with Bursey and Wise, and the approaching trial was discussed. With respect to these meetings, the District Court found as follows: “On neither of these occasions did the defendant Weatherford seek information from the plaintiff or his attorney, and on neither occasion did he initiate or ask for the meeting. He was brought into the meetings by the plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney in an effort to obtain information, ideas or suggestions as to the plaintiff’s defense. From the beginning Weatherford advised plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney that Weatherford would obtain a severance of his case from that of the plaintiff. This severance was to be upon the ground that Weatherford might be prejudiced in going to trial with Bursey as a codefendant, because of Bursey’s reputation and participation in other activities which had been covered by the news media. On no occasion did Bursey or his attorney question the granting of a severance, nor did they seem to concern themselves with whether the prosecutor would consent to a severance, although such consent is quite unusual where codefendants are charged with the same crime and proof will be from the same witnesses based upon identical facts. At those meetings between plaintiff, plaintiff’s attorney and defendant Weatherford the plaintiff and his attorney raised the question of a possible informer being used to prove the case, but they never asked Weatherford if he were an informer and he never specifically denied being an informer, since he was never asked or accused.” App. 248-249. At no time did Weatherford discuss with or pass on to his superiors or to the prosecuting attorney or any of the attorney’s staff “any details or information regarding the plaintiff’s trial plans, strategy, or anything having to do with the criminal action pending against plaintiff.” Id., at 249. Until the day of trial the prosecuting attorney did not plan to use Weatherford as a witness. Consequently, until then, Weatherford had not expected to be a witness and had anticipated continuing his undercover work. However, Weatherford had lost some of his effectiveness as an agent in the weeks preceding trial because he had been seen in the company of police officers, and he was called for the prosecution. He testified as to his undercover activities and gave an eyewitness account of the events of March 20, 1970. Bursey took the stand, was convicted, and then disappeared until apprehended some two years later, at which time he was incarcerated and forced to serve his 18-month sentence. Bursey then began this § 1983 action, alleging that Weatherford had communicated to his superiors and prosecuting officials the defense strategies and plans which he had learned at his meetings with Bursey and Wise, thereby depriving Bursey of the effective assistance of counsel to which he was entitled under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as of his right to a fair trial guaranteed him by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court found for the defendants in all respects and entered judgment accordingly. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, 528 F. 2d 483 (1975), concluding that “on the facts as found by the district court Bursey’s rights to effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial were violated.” Id., at 486. The Court of Appeals held that “whenever the prosecution knowingly arranges or permits intrusion into the attorney-client relationship the right to counsel is sufficiently endangered to require reversal and a new trial.” Ibid. That the intrusion occurred in order to prevent revealing Weather-ford’s identity as an undercover agent was immaterial. The Court of Appeals thought that Weatherford was himself “a member of the prosecution,” id., at 487, and that therefore it was also immaterial that he had not informed other officials about what was said or done in the two meetings with Bursey and Wise. In addition, the Court of Appeals concluded that Bursey had been denied due process of law under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), by concealment of Weatherford’s identity until the day of trial and by Weatherford’s statement that he would not be a witness, all of which lulled Bursey into a false sense of security and interfered with his preparations for trial. The judgment of the District Court was reversed, but the remand for further proceedings would have allowed Weatherford and Strom to present a qualified immunity defense under Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308 (1975). We granted the petition for certiorari filed by Weatherford and Strom, who are represented by the State Attorney General. 426 U. S. 946 (1976). We reverse. II The exact contours of the Court of Appeals’ per se right-to-counsel rule are difficult to discern; but as the Court of Appeals applied the rule in this case, it would appear that if an undercover agent meets with a criminal defendant who is awaiting trial and with hi.s attorney and if the forthcoming trial is discussed without the agent’s revealing his identity, a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights has occurred, whatever was the purpose of the agent in attending the meeting, whether or not he reported on the meeting to his superiors, and whether or not any specific prejudice to the defendant’s preparation for or conduct of the trial is demonstrated or otherwise threatened. The Court of Appeals was of the view, 528 F. 2d, at 486, that this Court “establish [ed] such a per se rule” in Black v. United States, 385 U. S. 26 (1966), and O’Brien v. United States, 386 U. S. 345 (1967). The Court of Appeals also relied on Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293 (1966). We cannot agree that these cases, individually or together, either require or suggest the rule announced by the Court of Appeals and now urged by Bursey. Both Black and O’Brien involved surreptitious electronic surveillance by the Government, which was discovered after trial and conviction and which was plainly illegal under the Fourth Amendment. In each case, some, but not all, of the conversations overheard were between the criminal defendant and his counsel during trial preparation. The conviction in each case was set aside and a new trial ordered. The explanatory per curiam in Black, although referring to the overheard conversations with counsel, did not rule that whenever conversations with counsel are overheard the Sixth Amendment is violated and a new trial must be had. Indeed, neither the Sixth Amendment nor the right to counsel was even mentioned in the short opinion. The Solicitor General conceded that Black was entitled to a “judicial determination” of whether “the monitoring of conversations between [Black] and his attorney had [any] effect upon his conviction or the fairness of his trial,” although the Solicitor General contended that information derived from the overheard conversations was not used in any way by the prosecution. Memorandum for United States in Black v. United States, O. T. 1965, No. 1029, p. 4 (emphasis added). The Court focused on the particular form the “judicial determination” should take, concluding that on the particular facts of the case a new trial was the more appropriate means of affording Black “an opportunity to protect himself from the use of evidence that might be otherwise inadmissible.” 385 U. S., at 29 (emphasis added). In O’Brien, the Court wrote nothing further, merely citing the Black per curiam. Once again the Solicitor General did not oppose further judicial proceedings to determine whether any information from the surveillance had been used at trial, notwithstanding his assertion that the contents of the overheard conversations were never communicated to the prosecuting attorneys. Brief for United States in O’Brien v. United States, O. T. 1966, No. 823, pp. 10-12. It is difficult to believe that the Court in Black and O’Brien was evolving a definitive construction of the Sixth Amendment without identifying the Amendment it was interpreting, especially in view of the well-established Fourth Amendment grounds for excluding the fruits of the illegal surveillance. If anything is to be inferred from these two cases with respect to the right to counsel, it is that when conversations with counsel have been overheard, the constitutionality of the conviction depends on whether the overheard conversations have produced, directly or indirectly, any of the evidence offered at trial. This is a far cry from the per se rule announced by the Court of Appeals below, for under that rule trial prejudice to the defendant is deemed irrelevant. Here, the courts below have already conducted the “judicial determination,” lacking in Black and O’Brien, of the effect of the overheard conversations on the defendant’s conviction, and there is nothing in their findings or in the record to indicate any “use of evidence that might be otherwise inadmissible.” Neither does the Court’s decision in Hoffa v. United States, supra, support the proposition urged by respondent. There, an informant sat in on conversations that defendant Hoffa had with his lawyers and with others during the course of Hoffa’s trial on a charge of violating the TaftHartley Act. The jury at that trial hung. Hoffa was then tried for tampering with that jury. The informer testified at the latter trial with respect to conversations he had overheard in Hoffa’s hotel suite during the prior trial, not including, however, the conversations Hoffa had with counsel. The Court sustained Hoffa’s jury-tampering conviction over his claim, among others, that his Sixth Amendment counsel right had been violated. In doing so, the Court did not hold that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel subsumes a right to be free from intrusion by informers into counsel-client consultations. Nor did it purport to describe the contours of any such right. The Court merely assumed, without deciding, that two cases in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dealing with the right to counsel, Caldwell v. United States, 92 U. S. App. D. C. 355, 205 F. 2d 879 (1953), and Coplon v. United States, 89 U. S. App. D. C. 103, 191 F. 2d 749 (1951), were correctly decided; assumed without deciding, that had Hoffa been convicted at his first trial, the conviction would have been set aside because the informer had overheard Hoffa and his lawyers conversing and had reported to the authorities the substance of at least some of those conversations; and then held that Hoffa’s assumed Sixth Amendment rights had not been violated because the informer’s testimony at the jury-tampering trial did not touch upon the overheard conversations with counsel but dealt only with conversations between Hoffa and third parties when his lawyers were not present. 385 U. S., at 307-308. Neither Black, O’Brien, Hoffa, nor any other case in this Court to which we have been cited furnishes grounds for the interpretation and application of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments appearing in the Court of Appeals’ opinion and judgment. At the same time, we need not agree with petitioners that whenever a defendant converses with his counsel in the presence of a third party thought to be a confederate and ally, the defendant assumes the risk and cannot complain if the third party turns out to be an informer for the government who has reported on the conversations to the prosecution and who testifies about them at the defendant’s trial. Had Weatherford testified at Bursey’s trial as to the conversation between Bursey and Wise; had any of the State’s evidence originated in these conversations; had those overheard conversations been used in any other way to the substantial detriment of Bursey; or even had the prosecution learned from Weatherford, an undercover agent, the details of the Bursey-Wise conversations about trial preparations, Bursey would have a much .stronger case. None of these elements is present here, however. Weather-ford’s testimony for the prosecution about the events of March and April 1970 revealed nothing said or done at the meetings between Bursey and Wise that he attended. None of the State’s evidence was obtained as a consequence of Weather-ford’s participation in those meetings. Nevertheless, it might be argued that Weatherford, a dutiful agent, surely communicated to the prosecutors Bursey’s defense plans and strategy and his attorney’s efforts to prepare for trial, all of which was inherently detrimental to Bursey, unfairly advantaged the prosecution, and threatened to subvert the adversary system of criminal justice. The argument founders on the District Court’s express finding that Weatherford communicated nothing at all to his superiors or to the prosecution about Bursey’s trial plans or about the upcoming trial. App. 249, 252. The Court of Appeals did not disturb this finding, but sought to surmount it by declaring Weatherford himself to have been a member of the prosecuting team whose knowledge of Bursey’s trial plans was alone enough to violate Bursey’s constitutional right to counsel and to vitiate Bursey’s conviction. 528 F. 2d, at 487. Though imaginative, this reasoning is not a realistic assessment of the relationship of Weatherford to the prosecuting staff or of the potential for detriment to Bursey or benefit to the State that Weather-ford’s uncommunicated knowledge might pose. If the fact was, as found by the District Court, that Weatherford communicated nothing about the two meetings to anyone else, we are quite unconvinced that a constitutional claim under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments was made out. This is consistent with the Court’s approach in the Hoff a case. There, the informant overheard several conversations between Hoffa and his attorneys, but the Court found it necessary to deal with the Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel claim only after noting that the informant had reported to the Government about at least some of the activities of Hoffa’s defense counsel. 385 U. S., at 305-306. As long as the information possessed by Weatherford remained uncommunicated, he posed no substantial threat to Bursey’s Sixth Amendment rights. Nor do we believe that federal or state prosecutors will be so prone to lie or the difficulties of proof will be so great that we must always assume not only that an informant communicates what he learns from an encounter with the defendant and his counsel but also that what he communicates has the potential for detriment to the defendant or benefit to the prosecutor’s case. Moreover, this is not a situation where the State’s purpose was to learn what it could about the defendant’s defense plans and the informant was instructed to intrude on the lawyer-client relationship or where the informant has assumed for himself that task and acted accordingly. Weatherford, the District Court found, did not intrude at all; he was invited to the meeting, apparently not for his benefit but for the benefit of Bursey and his lawyer. App. 248. Weatherford went, not to spy, but because he was asked and because the State was interested in retaining his undercover services on other matters and it was therefore necessary to avoid raising the suspicion that he was in fact the informant whose existence Bursey and Wise already suspected. That the per se rule adopted by the Court of Appeals would operate prophylactically and effectively is very likely true; but it would require the informant to refuse to participate in attorney-client meetings, even though invited, and thus for all practical purposes to unmask himself. Our cases, however, have recognized the unfortunate necessity of undercover work and the value it often is to effective law enforcement. E. g., United States v. Russell, 411 U. S. 423, 432 (1973); Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206, 208-209 (1966). We have also recognized the desirability and legality of continued secrecy even after arrest. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53, 59, 62 (1957). We have no general oversight authority with respect to state police investigations. We may disapprove an investigatory practice only if it violates the Constitution; and judged in this light, the Court of Appeals’ per se rule cuts much too broadly. If, for example, Weatherford at Bursey’s invitation had attended a meeting between Bursey and Wise but Wise had become suspicious and the conversation was confined to the weather or other harmless subjects, the Court of Appeals’ rule, literally read, would cloud Bursey’s subsequent conviction, although there would have been no constitutional violation. The same would have been true if Wise had merely asked whether Weatherford was an informant, Weatherford had denied it, and the meeting then had ended; likewise if the entire conversation had consisted of Wise’s questions and Weatherford’s answers about Weatherford’s own defense plans. Also, and more cogently for present purposes, unless Weatherford communicated the substance of the Bursey-Wise conversations and thereby created at least a realistic possibility of injury to Bursey or benefit to the State, there can be no Sixth Amendment violation. Yet Under the Court of Appeals’ rule, Bursey’s conviction would have been set aside on appeal. There being no tainted evidence in this case, no communication of defense strategy to the prosecution, and no purposeful intrusion by Weatherford, there was no violation of the Sixth Amendment insofar as it is applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment., The proof in this case thus fell short of making out a § 1983 claim, and the judgment of the District Court should have been affirmed in this respect. It is also apparent that neither Weatherford’s trial testimony nor the fact of his testifying added anything to the Sixth Amendment claim. Weatherford’s testimony for the prosecution related only to events prior to the meetings with Wise and Bursey and referred to nothing that was said at those meetings. There is no indication that any of this testimony was prompted by or was the product of those meetings. Weatherford’s testimony was surely very damaging, but the mere fact that he had met with Bursey and his lawyer prior to trial did not violate Bursey’s right to counsel any more than the informant’s meetings with Hoffa and Hoffa’s lawyers rendered inadmissible the informant’s testimony having no connection with those conversations. Ill Because under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), the prosecution has the “duty under the due process clause to insure that ‘criminal trials are fair’ by disclosing evidence favorable to the defendant upon request,” the Court of Appeals also held that the State was constitutionally forbidden to “conceal the identity of an informant from a defendant during his trial preparation,” to permit the informant to “deny up through the day before his appearance at trial that he will testify against the defendant,” and then to have the informant “testify with devastating effect.” 528 F. 2d, at 487. This conduct, the Court of Appeals thought, lulled the defendant into a false sense of security and denied him “the opportunity (1) to consider whether plea bargaining might be the best course, (2) to do a background check on Weatherford for purposes of cross-examination, and (3) to attempt to counter the devastating impact of eyewitness identification.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals apparently would have arrived at this conclusion whether or not Weatherford had ever met with Wise. Again we are in disagreement. Brady does not warrant the Court of Appeals’ holding. It does not follow from the prohibition against concealing evidence favorable to the accused that the prosecution must reveal before trial the names of all witnesses who will testify unfavorably. There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one; as the Court wrote recently, “the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded . . . .” Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U. S. 470, 474 (1973). Brady is not implicated here where the only claim is that the State should have revealed that it would present the eyewitness testimony of a particular agent against the defendant at trial. In terms of the defendant’s right to a fair trial, the situation is not changed materially by the additional element relied upon by the Court of Appeals, namely, that Weather-ford not only concealed his identity but represented he would not be a witness for the prosecution, an assertion that proved to be inaccurate. There are several answers to the contention that the claim of misrepresentation is of crucial importance. The first is that there was no deliberate misrepresentation in this regard: The trial court found that until the day of trial Weatherford did not expect to be called as a witness; until then he did not know-that he would testify. Second, as we understand the argument, it is that once the undercover agent has successfully caused an arrest, he risks causing an unfair trial if he denies his identity when accused or asked. We would" hesitate so to construe the Due Process Clause. We are not at all convinced that there is a constitutional difference between the situation where the informant is sufficiently trusted that he is never suspected and never asked about the possibility of his testifying but nevertheless surprises the defendant by giving devastating testimony, and the situation we have here, where the defendant is suspicious enough to ask and the informant denies that he will testify but nevertheless does so. Moreover, if the informant must confess his identity when confronted by an arrested defendant, in many cases the agent in order to protect himself will simply disappear pending trial, before the confrontation occurs. In the last analysis, however, the undercover agent who stays in place and continues his deception merely retains the capacity to surprise; and unless the surprise witness or unexpected evidence is, without more, a denial of constitutional rights, Bursey was not denied a fair trial. The Court of Appeals suggested that Weatherford’s continued duplicity lost Bursey the opportunity to plea bargain. But there is no constitutional right to plea bargain; the prosecutor need not do so if he prefers to go to trial. It is a novel argument that constitutional rights are infringed by-trying the defendant rather than accepting his plea of guilty. Moreover, Wise could have approached the prosecutor before trial and surely was under no misapprehension about Bursey’s plight during trial. It was also suggested by the Court of Appeals that Bursey was deprived of the opportunity to investigate Weatherford in preparation for possible impeachment on cross-examination. But there was no objection at trial to Weatherford’s testimony, no request for a continuance, and even now no indication of substantial prejudice from this occurrence. As for Bursey’s claimed disability to counter Weatherford’s “devastating” testimony, the disadvantage was no more than exists in any case where the State presents very damaging evidence that was not anticipated. Wise and Bursey must have realized that in going to trial the State was confident of conviction and that if any exculpatory evidence or possible defenses existed it would be extremely wise to have them available. Prudence would have counseled at least as much. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed.. In Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505 (1961), the Court had held that eavesdropping accomplished through use of an electronic listening device similar to the “tubular microphone” used to overhear Black’s and O’Brien’s conversations constituted an unauthorized physical penetration of the petitioners’ premises in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Solicitor General conceded that both Black and O’Brien should have been allowed to establish that the prosecution’s case was tainted by the interception of conversations between Black and persons other than their attorneys as well as by conversations involving counsel, thus indicating his awareness of the illegality of the Government’s eavesdropping under the Fourth Amendment. See n. 1, supra. Coplon held that interceptions by Government agents of telephone messages between the defendant and her lawyer before and during trial, if proved by the defendant, deprived her of her right to counsel and entitled her to a new trial. Caldwell held that the defendant’s right to counsel was violated where a Government undercover agent went to work as an assistant for the defense and reported frequently to the prosecution on “many matters connected with the impending trial.” 92 U. S. App. D. C., at 356, 205 F. 2d, at 880 (footnote omitted). In Hoffa, the United States conceded, as it does here as amicus curiae, that the Sixth Amendment would be violated “if the government places an informant in the defense camp during a criminal trial and receives from that informant privileged information pertaining to the defense of the criminal charges . . . because the Sixth Amendment’s assistance-of-counsel guarantee can be meaningfully implemented only if a criminal defendant knows that his communications with his attorney are private and that his lawful preparations for trial are secure against intrusion by the government, his adversary in the criminal proceeding.” Brief for United States in Hoffa v. United States, O. T. 1966, No. 32, p. 71, quoted in Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in the instant case, p. 24 n. 13. Respondent argues that Hoffa established the same right-to-counsel standard for government interception of attorney-client communications by an undercover agent as for interception by electronic surveillance. Even apart from the fact that the Court was merely assuming the existence of a right-to-counsel violation in that case, see supra, at 553, we find respondent’s argument questionable. One threat to the effective assistanee of counsel posed by government interception of attorney-client communications lies in the inhibition of free exchanges between defendant and counsel because of the fear of being overheard. However, a fear that some third party may turn out to be a government agent will inhibit attorney-client communication to a lesser degree than the fear that the government is monitoring those communications through electronic eavesdropping, because the former intrusion may be avoided by excluding third parties from defense meetings or refraining from divulging defense strategy when third parties are present at those meetings. Of course, in some circumstances the ability to exclude third parties from defense meetings may not eliminate the chilling effect on attorney-client exchanges, but neither Hoff a nor any other decision of this Court supports respondent’s theory that the chill is the same whether induced by electronic surveillance or by undercover agents. Cf. Fisher v. United States, 425 U. S. 391, 402-405 (1976) (attorney-client privilege protects only those disclosures which might not haye been made absent the privilege, because the purpose of the privilege is to encourage confidential disclosures by a client to an attorney); 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2311, pp. 601-602 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961) (attorney-client communications in the presence of a third party not the agent of either are generally not protected by the privilege). See App. 225-240 (testimony of Weatherford at state trial). On cross-examination by Wise (Bursey’s lawyer), Weatherford acknowledged that at the second meeting with Bursey and Wise, Weatherford told Wise, in response to the latter’s questions, that he had not been asked to testify for the prosecution and that he did not anticipate being present at Bursey’s trial. This testimony, elicited by defense counsel apparently for the purpose of discrediting Weatherford’s testimony on direct examination, obviously does not constitute use by the prosecution of information obtained from Weatherford’s attendance at defense meetings. Whatever the limitations on testimony by informants about statements made at defense meetings attended by them, 'the Sixth Amendment does not prevent the defense from introducing such statements to undercut the effectiveness of the informant’s testimony for the prosecution. Because we hold that Bursey’s constitutional rights were not violated by Weatherford’s actions, we reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals that Weatherford’s superior, Strom, was also liable because of his involvement in Weatherford’s undercover activities. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III-D. In this case we must decide whether federal statutes that prohibit the broadcast of lottery advertising by a broadcaster licensed to a State that does not allow lotteries, while allowing such broadcasting by a broadcaster licensed to a State that sponsors a lottery, are, as applied to respondent, consistent with the First Amendment. I While lotteries have existed in this country since its founding, States have long viewed them as a hazard to their citizens and to the public interest, and have long engaged in legislative efforts to control this form of gambling. Congress has, since the early 19th century, sought to assist the States in controlling lotteries. See, e. g., Act of Mar. 2,1827, §6, 4 Stat. 238; Act of July 27,1868, § 13,15 Stat. 196; Act of June 8, 1872, §149, 17 Stat. 302. In 1876, Congress made it a crime to deposit in the mails any letters or circulars concerning lotteries, whether illegal or chartered by state legislatures. See Act of July 12, 1876, ch. 186, § 2, 19 Stat. 90, codified at Rev. Stat. §3894 (2d ed. 1878). This Court rejected a challenge to the 1876 Act on First Amendment grounds in Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727 (1878). In response to the persistence of lotteries, particularly the Louisiana Lottery, Congress closed a loophole allowing the advertisement of lotteries in newspapers in the Anti-Lottery Act of 1890, ch. 908, § 1, 26 Stat. 465, codified at Supp. to Rev. Stat. §3894 (2d ed. 1891), and this Court upheld that Act against a First Amendment challenge in In re Rapier, 143 U. S. 110 (1892). When the Louisiana Lottery moved its operations to Honduras, Congress passed the Act of Mar. 2, 1895, 28 Stat. 963, 18 U. S. C. § 1301, which outlawed the transportation of lottery tickets in interstate or foreign commerce. This Court upheld the constitutionality of that Act against a claim that it exceeded Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause in Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321 (1903). This federal antilottery legislation remains in effect. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 1301, 1302. After the advent of broadcasting, Congress extended the federal lottery control scheme by prohibiting, in §316 of the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1088, the broadcast of “any advertisement of or information concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme.” 18 U. S. C. § 1304, as amended by the Charity Games Advertising Clarification Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-625, § 3(a)(4), 102 Stat. 3206. In 1975, Congress amended the statutory scheme to allow newspapers and broadcasters to advertise state-run lotteries if the newspaper is published in or the broadcast station is licensed to a State which conducts a state-run lottery. See 18 U. S. C. § 1307 (1988 ed., Supp. III). This exemption was enacted “to accommodate the operation of legally authorized State-run lotteries consistent with continued Federal protection to the policies of non-lottery States.” S. Rep. No. 93-1404, p. 2 (1974). See also H. R. Rep. No. 93-1517, p. 5 (1974). North Carolina does not sponsor a lottery, and participating in or advertising nonexempt raffles and lotteries is a crime under its statutes. N. C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-289 and 14-291 (1986 and Supp. 1992). Virginia, on the other hand, has chosen to legalize lotteries under a state monopoly and has entered the marketplace vigorously. Respondent, Edge Broadcasting Company (Edge), owns and operates a radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to Elizabeth City, North Carolina. This station, known as “Power 94,” has the call letters WMYK-FM and broadcasts from Moyock, North Carolina, which is approximately three miles from the border between Virginia and North Carolina and considerably closer to Virginia than is Elizabeth City. Power 94 is one of 24 radio stations serving the Hampton Roads, Virginia, metropolitan area; 92.2% of its listening audience are Virginians; the rest, 7.8%, reside in the nine North Carolina counties served by Power 94. Because Edge is licensed to serve a North Carolina community, the federal statute prohibits it from broadcasting advertisements for the Virginia lottery. Edge derives 95% of its advertising revenue from Virginia sources, and claims that it has lost large sums of money from its inability to carry Virginia lottery advertisements. Edge entered federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking a declaratory judgment that, as applied to it, §§ 1304 and 1307, together with corresponding FCC regulations, violated the First Amendment to the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth, as well as injunctive protection against the enforcement of those statutes and regulations. The District Court recognized that Congress has greater latitude to regulate broadcasting than other forms of communication. App. to Pet. for Cert. 14a-15a. The District Court construed the statutes not to cover the broadcast of noncommercial information about lotteries, a construction that the Government did not oppose. With regard to the restriction on advertising, the District Court evaluated the statutes under the established four-factor test for commercial speech set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, 566 (1980): “At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. [1] For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask [2] whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine [3] whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and [4] whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.” Assuming that the advertising Edge wished to air would deal with the Virginia lottery, a legal activity, and would not be misleading, the court went on to hold that the second and fourth Central Hudson factors were satisfied: the statutes were supported by a substantial governmental interest, and the restrictions were no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest, which was to discourage participating in lotteries in States that prohibited lotteries. The court held, however, that the statutes, as applied to Edge, did not directly advance the asserted governmental interest, failed the Central Hudson test in this respect, and hence could not be constitutionally applied to Edge. A divided Court of Appeals, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, affirmed in all respects, also rejecting the Government’s submission that the District Court had erred in judging the validity of the statutes on an “as applied” standard, that is, determining whether the statutes directly served the governmental interest in a substantial way solely on the effect of applying them to Edge. Judgt. order reported at 956 F. 2d 263 (CA4 1992). Because the court below declared a federal statute unconstitutional and applied reasoning that was questionable under our cases relating to the regulation of commercial speech, we granted certiorari. 506 U. S. 1032 (1992). We reverse. II The Government argues first that gambling implicates no constitutionally protected right, but rather falls within a category of activities normally considered to be “vices,” and that the greater power to prohibit gambling necessarily includes the lesser power to ban its advertisement; it argues that we therefore need not proceed with a Central Hudson analysis. The Court of Appeals did not address this issue and neither do we, for the statutes are not unconstitutional under the standards of Central Hudson applied by the courts below. III For most of this Nation’s history, purely commercial advertising was not considered to implicate the constitutional protection of the First Amendment. See Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U. S. 52, 54 (1942). In 1976, the Court extended First Amendment protection to speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction. See Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748 (1976). Our decisions, however, have recognized the “‘common-sense’ distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech.” Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S. 447, 455-456 (1978). The Constitution therefore affords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression. Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox, 492 U. S. 469, 477 (1989); Central Hudson, supra, at 563; Ohralik, supra, at 456. In Central Hudson, we set out the general scheme for assessing government restrictions on commercial speech. 447 U. S., at 566. Like the courts below, we assume that Edge, if allowed to, would air nonmisleading advertisements about the Virginia lottery, a legal activity. As to the second Central Hudson factor, we are quite sure that the Government has a substantial interest in supporting the policy of nonlottery States, as well as not interfering with the policy of States that permit lotteries. As in Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of P. R., 478 U. S. 328 (1986), the activity underlying the relevant advertising — gambling— implicates no constitutionally protected right; rather, it falls into a category of “vice” activity that could be, and frequently has been, banned altogether. As will later be discussed, we also agree that the statutes are no broader than necessary to advance the Government’s interest and hence the fourth part of the Central Hudson test is satisfied. The Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the District Court’s holding that the statutes were invalid because, as applied to Edge, they failed to advance directly the governmental interest supporting them. According to the Court of Appeals, whose judgment we are reviewing, this was because the 127,000 people who reside in Edge’s nine-county listening area in North Carolina receive most of their radio, newspaper, and television communications from Virginia-based media. These North Carolina residents who might listen to Edge “are inundated with Virginia’s lottery advertisements” and hence, the court stated, prohibiting Edge from advertising Virginia’s lottery “is ineffective in shielding North Carolina residents from lottery information.” This “ineffective or remote measure to support North Carolina’s desire to discourage gambling cannot justify infringement upon commercial free speech.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a, 7a. In our judgment, the courts below erred in that respect. A The third Central Hudson factor asks whether the “regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted.” 447 U. S., at 566. It is readily apparent that this question cannot be answered by limiting the inquiry to whether the governmental interest is directly advanced as applied to a single person or entity. Even if there were no advancement as applied in that manner — in this case, as applied to Edge — there would remain the matter of the regulation’s general application to others — in this case, to all other radio and television stations in North Carolina and countrywide. The courts below thus asked the wrong question in ruling on the third Central Hudson factor. This is not to say that the validity of the statutes’ application to Edge is an irrelevant inquiry, but that issue properly should be dealt with under the fourth factor of the Central Hudson test. As we have said, “[t]he last two steps of the Central Hudson analysis basically involve a consideration of the ‘fit’ between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends.” Posadas, supra, at 341. We have no doubt that the statutes directly advanced the governmental interest at stake in this case. In response to the appearance of state-sponsored lotteries, Congress might have continued to ban all radio or television lottery advertisements, even by stations in States that have legalized lotteries. This it did not do. Neither did it permit stations such as Edge, located in a nonlottery State, to carry lottery ads if their signals reached into a State that sponsors lotteries; similarly, it did not forbid stations in a lottery State such as Virginia from carrying lottery ads if their signals reached into an adjoining State such as North Carolina where lotteries were illegal. Instead of favoring either the lottery or the nonlottery State, Congress opted to support the antigambling policy of a State like North Carolina by forbidding stations in such a State to air lottery advertising. At the same time it sought not to unduly interfere with the policy of a lottery-sponsoring State such as Virginia. Virginia could advertise its lottery through radio and television stations licensed to Virginia locations, even if their signals reached deep into North Carolina. Congress surely knew that stations in one State could often be heard in another but expressly prevented each and every North Carolina station, including Edge, from carrying lottery ads. Congress plainly made the commonsense judgment that each North Carolina station would have an audience in that State, even if its signal reached elsewhere and that enforcing the statutory restriction would insulate each station’s listeners from lottery ads and hence advance the governmental purpose of supporting North Carolina’s laws against gambling. This congressional policy of balancing the interests of lottery and nonlottery States is the substantial governmental interest that satisfies Central Hudson, the interest which the courts below did not fully appreciate. It is also the interest that is directly served by applying the statutory restriction to all stations in North Carolina; and this would plainly be the case even if, as applied to Edge, there were only marginal advancement of that interest. B Left unresolved, of course, is the validity of applying the statutory restriction to Edge, an issue that we now address under the fourth Central Hudson factor, i. e., whether the regulation is more extensive than is necessary to serve the governmental interest. We revisited that aspect of Central Hudson in Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox, 492 U. S. 469 (1989), and concluded that the validity of restrictions on commercial speech should not be judged by standards more stringent than those applied to expressive conduct entitled to full First Amendment protection or to relevant time, place, or manner restrictions. Id., at 477-478. We made clear in Fox that our commercial speech cases require a fit between the restriction and the government interest that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable. Id., at 480. This was also the approach in Posadas, 478 U. S., at 344. We have no doubt that the fit in this case was a reasonable one. Although Edge was licensed to serve the Elizabeth City area, it chose to broadcast from a more northerly position, which allowed its signal to reach into the Hampton Roads, Virginia, metropolitan area. Allowing it to carry lottery ads reaching over 90% of its listeners, all in Virginia, would surely enhance its revenues. But just as surely, because Edge’s signals with lottery ads would be heard in the nine counties in North Carolina that its broadcasts reached, this would be in derogation of the substantial federal interest in supporting North Carolina’s laws making lotteries illegal. In this posture, to prevent Virginia’s lottery policy from dictating what stations in a neighboring State may air, it is reasonable to require Edge to comply with the restriction against carrying lottery advertising. In other words, applying the restriction to a broadcaster such as Edge directly advances the governmental interest in enforcing the restriction in nonlottery States, while not interfering with the policy of lottery States like Virginia. We think this would be the case even if it were true, which it is not, that applying the general statutory restriction to Edge, in isolation, would no more than marginally insulate the North Carolinians in the North Carolina counties served by Edge from hearing lottery ads. In Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781 (1989), we dealt with a time, place, or manner restriction that required the city to control the sound level of musical concerts in a city park, concerts that were fully protected by the First Amendment. We held there that the requirement of narrow tailoring was met if “the ... regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation,” provided that it did not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests. Id., at 799 (internal quotation marks omitted). In the course of upholding the restriction, we went on to say that “the validity of the regulation depends on the relation it bears to the overall problem the government seeks to correct, not on the extent to which it furthers the government’s interest in an individual case.” Id., at 801. The Ward holding is applicable here, for we have observed that the validity of time, place, or manner restrictions is determined under standards very similar to those applicable in the commercial speech context and that it would be incompatible with the subordinate position of commercial speech in the scale of First Amendment values to apply a more rigid standard to commercial speech than is applied to fully protected speech. Fox, supra, at 477, 478. Ward thus teaches us that we judge the validity of the restriction in this case by the relation it bears to the general problem of accommodating the policies of both lottery and nonlottery States, not by the extent to which it furthers the Government’s interest in an individual case. This is consistent with the approach we have taken in the commercial speech context. In Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S., at 462, for example, an attorney attacked the validity of a rule against solicitation “not facially, but as applied to his acts of solicitation.” We rejected the appellant’s view that his “as applied” challenge required the State to show that his particular conduct in fact trenched on the interests that the regulation sought to protect. We stated that in the general circumstances of the appellant’s acts, the State had “a strong interest in adopting and enforcing rules of conduct designed to protect the public.”' Id., at 464. This having been established, the State was entitled to protect its interest by applying a prophylactic rule to those circumstances generally; we declined to require the State to go further and to prove that the state interests supporting the rule actually were advanced by applying the rule in Ohralik’s particular case. Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761 (1993), is not to the contrary. While treating Fane’s claim as an as applied challenge to a broad category of commercial solicitation, we did not suggest that Fane could challenge the regulation on commercial speech as applied only to himself or his own acts of solicitation. C We also believe that the courts below were wrong in holding that as applied to Edge itself, the restriction at issue was ineffective and gave only remote support to the Government’s interest. As we understand it, both the Court of Appeals and the District Court recognized that Edge’s potential North Carolina audience was the 127,000 residents of nine North Carolina counties, that enough of them regularly or from time to time listen to Edge to account for 11% of all radio listening in those counties, and that while listening to Edge they heard no lottery advertisements. It could hardly be denied, and neither court below purported to deny, that these facts, standing alone, would clearly show that applying the statutory restriction to Edge would directly serve the statutory purpose of supporting North Carolina’s antigambling policy by excluding invitations to gamble from 11% of the radio listening time in the nine-county area. Without more, this result could hardly be called either “ineffective,” “remote,” or “conditional,” see Central Hudson, 447 U. S., at 564, 569. Nor could it be called only “limited incremental support,” Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 73 (1983), for the Government interest, or thought to furnish only speculative or marginal support. App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a, 25a. Otherwise, any North Carolina radio station with 127,000 or fewer potential listeners would be permitted to carry lottery ads because of its marginal significance in serving the State’s interest. Of course, both courts below pointed out, and rested their judgment on the fact, that the 127,000 people in North Carolina who might listen to Edge also listened to Virginia radio stations and television stations that regularly carried lottery ads. Virginia newspapers carrying such material also were available to them. This exposure, the courts below thought, was sufficiently pervasive to prevent the restriction on Edge from furnishing any more than ineffective or remote support for the statutory purpose. We disagree with this conclusion because in light of the facts relied on, it represents too limited a view of what amounts to direct advancement of the governmental interest that is present in this case. Even if all of the residents of Edge’s North Carolina service area listen to lottery ads from Virginia stations, it would still be true that 11% of radio listening time in that area would remain free of such material. If Edge is allowed to advertise the Virginia lottery, the percentage of listening time carrying such material would increase from 38% to 49%. We do not think that Central Hudson compels us to consider this consequence to be without significance. The Court of Appeals indicated that Edge’s potential audience of 127,000 persons were “inundated” by the Virginia media carrying lottery advertisements. But the District Court found that only 38% of all radio listening in the nine-county area was directed at stations that broadcast lottery advertising. With respect to television, the District Court observed that American adults spend 60% of their media consumption time listening to, or watching, television. The evidence before it also indicated that in four of the nine counties served by Edge, 75% of all television viewing was directed at Virginia stations; in three others, the figure was between 50 and 75%; and in the remaining two counties, between 25 and 50%. Even if it is assumed that all of these stations carry lottery advertising, it is very likely that a great many people in the nine-county area are exposed to very little or no lottery advertising carried on television. Virginia newspapers are also circulated in Edge’s area, 10,400 daily and 12,500 on Sundays, hardly enough to constitute a pervasive exposure to lottery advertising, even on the unlikely assumption that the readers of those newspapers always look for and read the lottery ads. Thus the District Court observed only that “a significant number of residents of [the nine-county] area listens to” Virginia radio and television stations and read Virginia newspapers. App. to Pet. for Cert. 25a (emphasis added). Moreover, to the extent that the courts below assumed that §§ 1304 and 1307 would have to effectively shield North Carolina residents from information about lotteries to advance their purpose, they were mistaken. As the Government asserts, the statutes were not “adopt[ed] ... to keep North Carolina residents ignorant of the Virginia Lottery for ignorance’s sake,” but to accommodate nonlottery States’ interest in discouraging public participation in lotteries, even as they accommodate the countervailing interests of lottery States. Reply Brief for Petitioners 11. Within the bounds of the general protection provided by the Constitution to commercial speech, we allow room for legislative judgments. Fox, 492 U. S., at 480. Here, as in Posadas de Puerto Rico, the Government obviously legislated on the premise that the advertising of gambling serves to increase the demand for the advertised product. See Posadas, 478 U. S., at 344. See also Central Hudson, supra, at 569. Congress clearly was entitled to determine that broadcast of promotional advertising of lotteries undermines North Carolina’s policy against gambling, even if the North Carolina audience is not wholly unaware of the lottery’s existence. Congress has, for example, altogether banned the broadcast advertising of cigarettes, even though it could hardly have believed that this regulation would keep the public wholly ignorant of the availability of cigarettes. See 15 U. S. C. § 1335. See also Queensgate Investment Co. v. Liquor Control Comm’n, 69 Ohio St. 2d 361, 366, 433 N. E. 138, 142 (alcohol advertising), app. dism’d for want of a substantial federal question, 459 U. S. 807 (1982). Nor do we require that the Government make progress on every front before it can make progress on any front. If there is an immediate connection between advertising and demand, and the federal regulation decreases advertising, it stands to reason that the policy of decreasing demand for gambling is correspondingly advanced. Accordingly, the Government may be said to advance its purpose by substantially reducing lottery advertising, even where it is not wholly eradicated. Thus, even if it were proper to conduct a Central Hudson analysis of the statutes only as applied to Edge, we would not agree with the courts below that the restriction at issue here, which prevents Edge from broadcasting lottery advertising to its sizable radio audience in North Carolina, is rendered ineffective by the fact that Virginia radio and television programs can be heard in North Carolina. In our view, the restriction, even as applied only to Edge, directly advances the governmental interest within the meaning of Central Hudson. D Nor need we be blind to the practical effect of adopting respondent’s view of the level of particularity of analysis appropriate to decide its case. Assuming for the sake of argument that Edge had a valid claim that the statutes violated Central Hudson only as applied to it, the piecemeal approach it advocates would act to vitiate the Government’s ability generally to accommodate States with differing policies. Edge has chosen to transmit from a location near the border between two jurisdictions with different rules, and rests its case on the spillover from the jurisdiction across the border. Were we to adopt Edge’s approach, we would treat a station that is close to the line as if it were on the other side of it, effectively extending the legal regime of Virginia inside North Carolina. One result of holding for Edge on this basis might well be that additional North Carolina communities, farther from the Virginia border, would receive broadcast lottery advertising from Edge. Broadcasters licensed to these communities, as well as other broadcasters serving Elizabeth City, would then be able to complain that lottery advertising from Edge and other similar broadcasters renders the federal statute ineffective as applied to them. Because the approach Edge advocates has no logical stopping point once state boundaries are ignored, this process might be repeated until the policy of supporting North Carolina’s ban on lotteries would be seriously eroded. We are unwilling to start down that road. IV Because the statutes challenged here regulate commercial speech in a manner that does not violate the First Amendment, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed. Justice O’Connor joins Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, and IV of this opinion. Justice Scalia joins all but Part III-C of this opinion. Justice Kennedy joins Parts I, II, III-C, and IV of this opinion. Justice Souter joins all but Parts III-A, III-B, and III-D of this opinion. Title 18 U. S. C. §1304 (1988 ed., Supp. Ill) provides: “Broadcasting lottery information “Whoever broadcasts by means of any radio or television station for which a license is required by any law of the United States, or whoever, operating any such station, knowingly permits the broadcasting of, any advertisement of or information concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering prizes dependent in whole or in part upon lot or chance, or any list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of any such lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme, whether said list contains any part or all of such prizes, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” Title 18 U. S. C. §1307 (1988 ed. and Supp. Ill) provides in relevant part: “Exceptions relating to certain advertisements and other information and to State-conducted lotteries “(a) The provisions of sections 1301, 1302, 1303, and 1304 shall not apply to— “(1) an advertisement, list of prizes, or other information concerning a lottery conducted by a State acting under the authority of State law which is— “(A) contained in a publication published in that State or in a State which conducts such a lottery; or “(B) broadcast by a radio or television station licensed to a location in that State or a State which conducts such a lottery; or “(2) an advertisement, list of prizes, or other information concerning a lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme, other than one described in paragraph (1), that is authorized or not otherwise prohibited by the State in which it is conducted and which is— “(A) conducted by a not-for-profit organization or a governmental organization; or “(B) conducted as a promotional activity by a commercial organization and is clearly occasional and ancillary to the primary business of that organization.” We deem it remarkable and unusual that although the Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment that an Act of Congress was unconstitutional as applied, the court found it appropriate to announce its judgment in an unpublished per curiam opinion. It would appear, then, that 51% of the radio listening time in the relevant nine counties is attributable to other North Carolina stations or other stations not carrying lottery advertising. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

C

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. In the early morning of October 15, 1979, an officer of the Colorado Springs Police Department observed a blue 1967 Pontiac GTO automobile moving along a road at a speed above the legal limit. Before the officer could pursue the vehicle, it disappeared from his sight. Shortly thereafter, the officer heard a police radio dispatch reporting that a theft of motor vehicle parts had occurred in the area he was patrolling in his car. The radio dispatch announced that a number of chrome lug nuts were among the items stolen, and provided a description of two suspects. A few minutes after hearing the report, the officer spotted the same automobile he had seen earlier, still speeding. He saw the car enter a service station, and followed it there for the purpose of issuing a traffic citation to its driver. As the officer approached the car, both of its occupants, including the respondent, stepped out of it. A conversation between the officer and the respondent ensued, just outside the closed front door of the automobile. At this time, the officer observed chrome lug nuts in an open glove compartment located between the vehicle’s front bucket seats, as well as two lug wrenches on the floorboard of the back seat. These items were in plain view, illuminated by the lights of the service station. Recognizing that the respondent and his companion met the description of those suspected of stealing motor vehicle parts, the officer immediately arrested both of them. He then seized the lug nuts and wrenches. Before the date scheduled for his trial on charges of stealing motor vehicle parts, the respondent moved to suppress the items that the arresting officer had seized. The trial court granted the motion, and its decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Colorado. The State subsequently filed a petition for certiorari in this Court. The provisions of the Fourth Amendment are enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth, and it is axiomatic that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967). One of these exceptions, recognized at least since Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925), exists when an automobile or other vehicle is stopped and the police have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime. See Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753, 760 (1979). Carroll upheld the legality of a search that was conducted immediately after a vehicle was stopped. Since Carroll, warrantless searches have been found permissible even when a car was searched after being seized and moved to a police station. Texas v. White, 423 U. S. 67 (1975); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42 (1970). In each of these latter cases, the search was constitutionally permissible because an immediate, on-the-scene search would have been permissible. Texas v. White, supra, at 68; Chambers v. Maroney, supra, at 52. At issue in the present case is a seizure that occurred on the scene shortly after a speeding car was stopped. Thus, if there was probable cause “that the contents of the automobile offend against the law,” Carroll, supra, at 159, the warrantless seizure was permissible. Probable cause in this case is self-evident. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Colorado acknowledged that there was probable cause, but mistakenly concluded that a warrant was required to open the car door and seize the items within. The officer could not stop the vehicle the first time he detected it speeding, but he accosted it at his next opportunity, when it entered the service station. His subsequent approach to the side of the automobile in order to issue a traffic citation to its driver was entirely legitimate. Standing by the front door of the car, the officer happened to see items matching the description of some of those recently stolen in the vicinity, and observed that the occupants of the car met the description of those suspected of the crime. These circumstances provided not only probable cause to arrest, but also under Carroll and Chambers, probable cause to seize the incriminating items without a warrant. The petition for certiorari and the respondent’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is vacated, and the ease is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. 199 Colo. 281, 607 P. 2d 987 (1980). Another factor that contributes to the justification for the absence of a warrant in such a situation is that “the circumstances that furnish probable cause to search a particular auto for particular articles are most, often unforeseeable.” Chambers, 399 U. S., at 50-51. See also Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583, 595 (1974). This factor applies with particular force in this case. As the reason for the . stop was wholly unconnected with the reason for the subsequent seizure, it would be especially unreasonable to require a detour to a magistrate before the unanticipated evidence could be lawfully seized. There can be no question that the stopping of a vehicle and the detention of its occupants constitute a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 653 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 556-558 (1976); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975). The respondent does not dispute that the items seized were illuminated by the lights of the service station, or that they were in the plain view of the officer as he spoke to him beside the front door of the car. There was no evidence whatsoever that the officer’s presence to issue a traffic citation was a pretext to confirm any other previous suspicion about the occupants. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE By its decision of February 26, 1985, the Court overruled the exceptions of the United States to the Report of its Special Master insofar as it challenged the Master’s determination that the whole of Mississippi Sound constitutes historic inland waters, and, to this extent, adopted the Master’s recommendations and confirmed his Report. On March 1, 1988, the Court resolved the disagreement between the United States and Mississippi as to that portion of the Mississippi coastline at issue in the above-captioned litigation and directed parties to submit to the Special Master a proposed appropriate decree defining the claims of Alabama and Mississippi with respect to Mississippi Sound. On August 17, 1990, the parties agreed on and submitted to the Special Master a proposed decree in accordance with the Court’s decision of March 1,1988, which was approved by the Court on November 5,1990. Pursuant to that supplemental decree, the baseline (coastline) of the State of Mississippi as well as a portion of the baseline of the State of Alabama was delimited and, by stipulation of the parties, fixed, as described by coordinates in that decree. That portion of the Alabama coastline not described by coordinates in the decree remained ambulatory. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the State of Alabama and the United States regarding their respective claims under the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., to offshore areas in which the baseline had not been fixed by the Court’s November 5, 1990, Decree. The parties thereafter filed a joint motion with this Court, requesting that the Court invoke its continuing jurisdiction to supplement the November 5, 1990, Decree. 498 U. S. 9 (1990). With that motion the parties submitted for the Court’s consideration a supplemental decree which would fix that portion of the Alabama baseline that had heretofore remained ambulatory, resolve the existing dispute, and avoid future jurisdictional controversies over the State of Alabama Submerged Lands Act grant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. The parties’ joint motion to supplement the Court’s Decree of November 5,1990, is granted. 2. For the purpose of the Court’s Decree herein dated December 12, 1960, 364 U. S. 502 (defining the boundary line between the submerged lands of the States bordering the Gulf of Mexico), the coastline of the States of Alabama and Mississippi shall be determined on the basis that the whole Mississippi Sound constitutes state inland waters; 3. For the purposes of the said Decree of December 12, 1960, the coastline of Alabama includes: (a) That portion of a straight line from a point on the eastern tip of Petit Bois Island where X = 215985 and Y = 77920 in the Alabama plane coordinate system, west zone, and X = 637152.89 and Y = 198279.25 in the Mississippi plane coordinate system, east zone, to a fixed point previously described as the western tip of Dauphin Island by the Court’s Decree of November 5, 1990, where X = 238690 and Y = 84050 in the Alabama plane coordinate system, west zone, and X = 659783.79 and Y = 204674.56 in the Mississippi plane coordinate system, east zone, lying on the Alabama side of the Alabama-Mississippi boundary; (b) A straight line from the fixed point previously described as the western tip of Dauphin Island where X = 238690 and Y = 84050 in the Alabama plane coordinate system, west zone, to a point on the western tip of Dauphin Island where X = 240239.49 and Y = 85266.90 in the same coordinate system; (c) The baseline delimiting Dauphin Island determined by the following points in the Alabama plane coordinate system, west zone: E. COORD. N. COORD. X Y A LINE FROM 240491.79 84972.10 240848.85 84605.82 THROUGH 241013.42 84311.65 THROUGH 241205.05 84118.32 THROUGH 241590.69 84065.03 THROUGH 242142.09 83879.22 THROUGH 242413.48 83796.45 THROUGH 242694.43 83824.75 THROUGH 243220.74 83810.88 THROUGH 243580.37 83798.21 THROUGH 244027.43 83744.51 THROUGH 244536.27 83740.89 THROUGH 244878.06 83687.95 THROUGH 245246.75 83715.64 THROUGH 245641.25 83672.44 THROUGH 245973.56 83518.55 THROUGH 246464.50 83464.57 THROUGH 246886.11 83532.32 THROUGH 247307.57 83579.87 THROUGH 247711.06 83566.93 THROUGH 248158.99 83634.51 THROUGH 248606.77 83681.89 THROUGH THROUGH 248905.97 83811.13 THROUGH 249204.96 83910.07 THROUGH 249538.75 83968.36 THROUGH 249890.17 84036.63 THROUGH 250276.60 84094.56 THROUGH 250934.57 84090.00 THROUGH 251636.34 84075.04 THROUGH 252313.25 84272.42 THROUGH 252936.89 84379.26 THROUGH 253683.35 84485.27 THROUGH 254464.61 84550.64 THROUGH 255158.29 84636.83 THROUGH 255930.50 84661.89 THROUGH 256527.80 84768.97 THROUGH 257100.01 85058.07 THROUGH 257636.92 85317.12 THROUGH 258244.41 85636.31 THROUGH 258841.55 85723.22 THROUGH 259456.50 85850.44 THROUGH 260045.14 85977.84 THROUGH 260695.58 86165.45 THROUGH 261143.78 86283.70 THROUGH 261758.98 86451.36 THROUGH 262312.84 86629.54 THROUGH 262734.31 86687.37 THROUGH 263076.76 86735.63 THROUGH 263313.48 86713.86 THROUGH 263594.99 86833.24 THROUGH 264034.80 87012.20 THROUGH 264447.62 8709.0.31 THROUGH 264763.68 87128.65 THROUGH 265255.32 87186.05 THROUGH 265712.59 87354.81 THROUGH 266107.99 87453.26 THROUGH 266626.20 87550.92 THROUGH 267179.63 87668.56 THROUGH 267829.73 87815.89 THROUGH 268532.21 87922.49 THROUGH 269120.58 88019.73 THROUGH 269691.59 88147.40 THROUGH 270166.31 88306.00 THROUGH 270736.80 88352.87 THROUGH 271281.56 88490.83 THROUGH 271843.72 88608.49 THROUGH 272300.62 88726.82 THROUGH 272915.73 88894.67 THROUGH 273600.55 88991.37 THROUGH 274162.58 89088.86 THROUGH 274601.79 89187.13 THROUGH 274953.35 89296.05 THROUGH 275348.70 89394.61 THROUGH 275796.68 89492.83 THROUGH 276227.06 89581.07 THROUGH 276657.61 89699.62 THROUGH 277219.49 89776.96 THROUGH 277763.57 89814.00 THROUGH 278326.00 89982.26 THROUGH 278870.45 90079.93 THROUGH 279397.35 90177.72 THROUGH 280073.43 90284.70 THROUGH 280530.15 90382.93 THROUGH 281179.60 90439.59 THROUGH 281697.41 90486.95 THROUGH 282180.19 90544.63 THROUGH 282829.76 90621.52 THROUGH 283435.09 90638.07 THROUGH 284014.48 90715.40 THROUGH 284698.99 90771.91 THROUGH 285269.60 90849.31 THROUGH 285910.08 90875.79 THROUGH 286568.75 91013.31 THROUGH 287138.94 91020.03 THROUGH 287726.72 91036.75 THROUGH 288393.56 91073.23 THROUGH 288937.49 91090.23 THROUGH 289499.19 91147.55 THROUGH 290086.68 91113.81 THROUGH 290674.16 91080.07 THROUGH 291340.88 91096.39 THROUGH 291946.02 91082.78 THROUGH 292454.92 91110.14 THROUGH 293078.13 91187.37 THROUGH 293674.68 91204.14 THROUGH 294332.04 91119.55 THROUGH 294753.40 91177.75 THROUGH 295306.03 91184.70 THROUGH 296007.66 91170.61 THROUGH 296717.82 91116.07 THROUGH 297498.39 91101.56 THROUGH 298419.12 91055.97 THROUGH 299339.74 90990.20 THROUGH 300171.70 90753.20 THROUGH 300916.74 90658.14 THROUGH 301609.33 90593.70 THROUGH 302275.16 90448.59 THROUGH 302836.46 90435.40 THROUGH 303432.29 90321.01 THROUGH 303913.82 90156,74 THROUGH 304570.40 89920.81 THROUGH 305148.05 89685.31 THROUGH 305664.13 89419.86 THROUGH 306268.49 89254.95 THROUGH - 306924.94 88988.76 THROUGH 307634.62 88833.42 THROUGH 308274.89 88819.89 THROUGH 308748.98 88898.18 THROUGH 309476.70 88833.70 THROUGH 310161.04 88860.38 THROUGH 310880.04 88806.08 THROUGH 311616.90 88812.31 THROUGH 312309.76 88788.48 THROUGH 312986.68 88886.98 THROUGH 313469.92 88994.64 THROUGH 314171.36 89172.79 THROUGH 314847.17 89260.12 THROUGH 316672.47 89397.41 THROUGH 316234.26 89475.35 THROUGH 316839.88 89553.08 THROUGH 317616.17 89529.44 THROUGH 318086.23 89708.38 TO 318369.83 90040.37 A LINE FROM 309362.32 80499.88 THROUGH 309370.61 80408.91 THROUGH 309540.79 79407.88 THROUGH 309801.70 78972.10 THROUGH 310106.82 78596.70 THROUGH 310446.88 78190.81 THROUGH 310769.82 77865.84 THROUGH 311163.33 77611.21 THROUGH 311691.47 77265.49 THROUGH 312046.73 76879.23 THROUGH 312626.96 76614.06 THROUGH 312920.66 76389.76 THROUGH 313348.99 76074.36 THROUGH 313707.54 75840.16 THROUGH 314162.68 75616.66 THROUGH 314485.89 75331.01 THROUGH 314809.52 75127.30 THROUGH 315220.95 74933.24 THROUGH 315449.46 75002.79 TO 316572.98 75133.48 A LINE FROM 316237.86 74736.09 THROUGH 316429.31 74421.94 THROUGH 316761.32 74137.39 THROUGH 317252.83 74165.09 THROUGH 317805.05 74031.07 THROUGH 318216.92 73917.86 THROUGH 318681.85 73885.21 TO 318858.57 74126.77 A LINE FROM 319734.51 73809.20 THROUGH 320172.46 73645.37 THROUGH 320408.54 73472.46 THROUGH 320793.69 73258.39 THROUGH 321144.45 73226.34 TO 321276.78 73367.11 A LINE FROM 324818.43 70814.04 THROUGH 324993.60 70722.27 TO 325117.15 70883.31 A LINE FROM 333064.90 81603.36 THROUGH 333168.82 81209.91 THROUGH 333378.02 80915.98 THROUGH 333719.43 80752.77 THROUGH 334061.32 80690.57 THROUGH 334420.93 80668.71 THROUGH 334780.79 80697.36 THROUGH 335324.74 80694.87 THROUGH 335772.61 80763.53 THROUGH 336194.09 80862.63 THROUGH 336896.51 80980.66 THROUGH 337327.09 81130.25 THROUGH 337696.35 81300.31 THROUGH 338047.46 81339.14 THROUGH 338539.04 81397.54 THROUGH 339083.93 81607.24 THROUGH 339549.41 81716.29 THROUGH 339935.70 81775.18 THROUGH 340348.53 81884.47 THROUGH 340752.50 81973.59 THROUGH 341217.96 82082.66 THROUGH 341613.15 82171.83 THROUGH 342087.16 82230.36 THROUGH 342526.61 82410.27 THROUGH 342992.15 82539.57 THROUGH 343554.02 82628.03 THROUGH 344124.44 82665.97 THROUGH 344633.62 82744.58 THROUGH 345090.33 82863.83 THROUGH 345608.10 82902.01 THROUGH 346011.57 82880.08 THROUGH 346477.09 83009.42 THROUGH 347117.85 83087.50 THROUGH 347715.13 83256.70 THROUGH 348180.05 83244.63 THROUGH 348759.47 83343.21 THROUGH 349479.14 83410.91 THROUGH 349953.03 83449.33 THROUGH 350514.82 83527.81 THROUGH 351102.43 83484.96 THROUGH 351672.90 83543.21 THROUGH 352155.65 83601.84 THROUGH 352726.25 83690.42 THROUGH 353331.77 83738.45 THROUGH 353946.10 83796.56 THROUGH 354516.48 83834.66 THROUGH 355069.16 83832.42 THROUGH 355771.25 83900.31 THROUGH 356288.91 83918.44 THROUGH 356806.58 83936.58 THROUGH 357359.37 83964.69 THROUGH 357736.51 83942.99 THROUGH 358245.00 83860.16 THROUGH 358771.24 83827.79 THROUGH 359323.76 83785.21 THROUGH 360034.18 83742.03 THROUGH 360569.58 83810.66 THROUGH 361341.53 83797.57 THROUGH 362166.47 83875.22 THROUGH 362885.71 83842.16 THROUGH 363675.39 83879.57 THROUGH 364131.80 83938.45 THROUGH 364509.47 84058.25 THROUGH 364922.01 84117.31 THROUGH 365369.37 84105.53 THROUGH 365939.40 84052.89 THROUGH 366456.94 84040.86 THROUGH 367044.73 84048.78 THROUGH 367588.41 83986.16 THROUGH 368141.19 84014.43 THROUGH 368606.17 84022.83 THROUGH 369237.28 83879.10 THROUGH 369728.32 83816.71 THROUGH 370034.56 83593.35 THROUGH 370420.34 83531.35 THROUGH 370885.00 83448.86 THROUGH 371446.45 83446.85 THROUGH 371999.16 83454.98 THROUGH 372481.55 83422.96 THROUGH 372972.64 83370.71 THROUGH 373630.59 83368.39 THROUGH 374130.53 83336.33 THROUGH 374534.11 83345.02 THROUGH 375069.34 83373.46 THROUGH 375692.20 83371.30 THROUGH 376314.99 83348.95 THROUGH 376999.09 83296.09 THROUGH 377595.43 83233.44 THROUGH 378306.08 83251.23 THROUGH 378762.13 83209.28 THROUGH 379288.29 83146.90 THROUGH 379919.72 83084.17 THROUGH 380604.06 83102.10 THROUGH 381261.98 83089.82 THROUGH 381919.70 83016.94 THROUGH 382638.87 82953.97 THROUGH 383288.02 82941.75 THROUGH 383910.69 82879.13 THROUGH 384480.86 82857.08 THROUGH 385129.91 82814.60 THROUGH 385840.54 82822.43 THROUGH 386393.38 82871.19 THROUGH 386998.58 82828.88 THROUGH 387621.32 82786.52 THROUGH 388147.40 82693.96 THROUGH 388629.75 82641.95 THROUGH 389191.09 82599.81 THROUGH 389708.53 82547.71 THROUGH 390182.42 82596.77 THROUGH 390901.73 82574.37 THROUGH 391393.04 82582.99 THROUGH 391954.59 82611.60 THROUGH 392533.59 82609.86 THROUGH 393059.69 82517.38 THROUGH 393550.70 82425.00 THROUGH 394094.65 82433.50 THROUGH 394726.24 82411.44 THROUGH 395217.46 82389.80 THROUGH 395629.90 82429.01 THROUGH 396077.20 82387.30 THROUGH 396349.16 82386.52 THROUGH 396744.02 82415.69 THROUGH 397173.87 82404.35 THROUGH 397516.09 82433.68 THROUGH 398016.32 82492.87 THROUGH 398446.30 82532.06 THROUGH 398893.83 82571.21 THROUGH 399472.64 82498.87 THROUGH 399955.51 82628.85 THROUGH 400394.60 82789.26 THROUGH 400448.04 83082.07 THROUGH 400930.74 83151.45 THROUGH 401264.13 83160.63 THROUGH 401737.85 83159.33 THROUGH 402027.37 83168.64 THROUGH 402299.46 83218.41 THROUGH 402711.92 83267.80 THROUGH 403133.25 83357.58 THROUGH 403501.78 83386.90 THROUGH 403984.25 83375.50 THROUGH 404291.45 83435.30 THROUGH 404695.09 83474.63 THROUGH 405081.54 83645.34 THROUGH 405423.99 83765.66 THROUGH 405801.76 83976.81 THROUGH 406144.39 84167.85 THROUGH 406530.27 84126.44 THROUGH 406924.90 84074.90 THROUGH 407372.42 84124.26 THROUGH 407811.04 84123.13 THROUGH 408258.70 84223.00 THROUGH 408837.85 84292.24 THROUGH 409522.28 84361.22 THROUGH 409934.81 84451.11 THROUGH 410470.17 84550.79 THROUGH 410996.78 84660.60 THROUGH 411637.61 84840.85 THROUGH 412418.71 84990.47 THROUGH 413068.07 85079.81 THROUGH 413586.09 85270.50 THROUGH 414183.03 85450.90 THROUGH 414849.99 85570.54 THROUGH 415657.42 85740.36 THROUGH 416491.02 85849.54 THROUGH 417324.66 85978.93 THROUGH 418000.45 86128.91 THROUGH 418798.97 86248.32 THROUGH 419597.59 86418.26 THROUGH 420141.58 86477.66 THROUGH 421115.65 86657.34 THROUGH 421861.76 86888.05 THROUGH 422712.94 87037.74 THROUGH 423397.41 87167.60 THROUGH 423967.70 87227.00 THROUGH 424573.05 87276.23 THROUGH 424836.41 87376.70 THROUGH 425003.05 87366.25 THROUGH 425652.12 87354.80 THROUGH 426275.28 87535.35 THROUGH 426696.34 87544.59 THROUGH 427108.82 87654.87 THROUGH 427617.80 87764.96 THROUGH 427889.90 87855.33 THROUGH 428232.02 87874.85 THROUGH 428609.22 87884.20 THROUGH 428986.33 87853.14 THROUGH 429425.10 87953.30 THROUGH 429933.91 87982.61 THROUGH 430293.61 88022.32 THROUGH 430653.32 88062.03 THROUGH 431057.06 88192.57 THROUGH 431486.95 88242.26 THROUGH 431934.31 88251.51 THROUGH 432329.06 88270.97 THROUGH 432750.24 88350.99 THROUGH 433294.10 88370.18 THROUGH 433759.13 88450.14 THROUGH 434180.17 88459.47 THROUGH 434469.79 88549.85 THROUGH 434882.19 88629.92 THROUGH 435329.59 88669.52 THROUGH 435768.30 88749.55 THROUGH 436119.30 88829.73 THROUGH 436487.85 88920.00 THROUGH 436891.52 89030.41 THROUGH 437312.61 89070.08 THROUGH 437751.30 89150.13 THROUGH 438128.62 89240.39 THROUGH 438602.47 89360.80 THROUGH 439006.13 89471.24 THROUGH 439471.18 89581.57 THROUGH 439865.91 89601.11 THROUGH 440208.02 89620.74 THROUGH 440532.73 89731.32 THROUGH 440866.22 89852.00 THROUGH 441190.85 89912.07 THROUGH 441559.38 90002.39 THROUGH 441919.07 90052.31 THROUGH 442348.83 90041.52 THROUGH 442787.44 90081.23 THROUGH 443024.36 90151.56 THROUGH 443357.69 90171.24 THROUGH 443691.00 90180.82 THROUGH 444112.06 90220.57 THROUGH 444550.67 90260.29 THROUGH 445006.90 90350.51 THROUGH 445375.32 90380.25 THROUGH 445708.79 90500.97 THROUGH 446147.42 90560.92 THROUGH 446506.95 90509.87 THROUGH 446884.06 90489.11 THROUGH 447164.82 90549.31 THROUGH 447375.35 90569.20 THROUGH 447813.96 90619.07 THROUGH 448331.42 90608.22 THROUGH 448857.71 90637.77 THROUGH 449278.79 90697.79 THROUGH 449734.96 90757.76 THROUGH 450182.35 90817.74 THROUGH 450866.72 90998.63 THROUGH 451454.54 91139.26 THROUGH 452112.64 91360.62 THROUGH 452630.45 91622.58 THROUGH 453095.47 91763.39 THROUGH 453551.80 91964.84 THROUGH 454078.26 92145.99 THROUGH 454683.58 92276.55 THROUGH 455209.95 92397.11 THROUGH 455710.07 92568.22 THROUGH 456096.04 92628.36 THROUGH 456534.65 92708.64 THROUGH 456990.81 92799.01 THROUGH 457385.59 92899.55 THROUGH 457885.64 93020.19 THROUGH 458280.44 93140.95 THROUGH 458675.19 93221.31 THROUGH 458955.89 93271.49 THROUGH 459271.79 93422.66 THROUGH 459675.36 93553.53 THROUGH 460149.07 93674.22 THROUGH 460596.54 93855.56 THROUGH 461070.28 93996.47 THROUGH 461421.21 94127.42 THROUGH 461912.46 94248.11 THROUGH 462377.40 94378.95 THROUGH 462772.12 94449.25 THROUGH 463079.18 94570.15 THROUGH 463210.60 94438.69 THROUGH 463570.26 94539.35 THROUGH 464087.77 94629.74 THROUGH 464631.61 94740.32 THROUGH 465079.00 94881.31 THROUGH 465570.28 95062.67 THROUGH 466131.66 95193.46 THROUGH 466596.60 95354.65 THROUGH 467061.55 95525.95 THROUGH 467552.76 95646.73 THROUGH 468158.10 95918.94 THROUGH 468798.42 96090.10 THROUGH 469307.24 96322.01 THROUGH 469780.91 96463.03 THROUGH 470193.23 96664.72 E. COORD. X N. COORD. Y THROUGH 470772.13 96815.78 THROUGH 471245.77 96946.72 THROUGH 471833.42 97087.68 THROUGH 472368.41 97178.18 THROUGH 472903.44 97319.20 THROUGH 473263.04 97409.84 THROUGH 473850.70 97591.24 THROUGH 474473.39 97712.02 THROUGH 474911.95 97873.34 THROUGH 475447.00 98075.00 THROUGH 475894.29 98185.82 THROUGH 476402.97 98316.81 THROUGH 476920.39 98397.28 THROUGH 477393.97 98498.00 THROUGH 477806.18 98629.07 THROUGH 478428.87 98790.32 THROUGH 478946.30 98921.33 THROUGH 479411.09 99001.88 THROUGH 479919.72 99082.41 THROUGH 480366.90 99041.75 THROUGH 480893.00 99001.06 THROUGH 481199.70 98606.93 THROUGH 481322.14 97990.65 THROUGH 481479.95 97929.96 THROUGH 481970.97 97838.79 THROUGH 482269.23 98070.98 THROUGH 482400.89 98333.57 THROUGH 482646.54 98585.99 THROUGH 482909.74 98868.72 THROUGH 483111.46 98959.54 THROUGH 483435.89 98918.98 THROUGH 483953.36 99191.50 THROUGH 484391.89 99403.44 THROUGH 485058.36 99544.58 THROUGH 485488.00 99504.00 THROUGH 485716.07 99705.94 THROUGH 486058.04 99715.91 THROUGH 486408.84 99867.30 THROUGH 486908.66 99917.63 THROUGH 487320.85 100109.42 THROUGH 487820.68 100200.16 THROUGH 488469.63 100452.49 THROUGH 488934.38 100543.26 THROUGH 489407.93 100775.46 THROUGH 489898.99 100906.64 THROUGH 490293.63 101159.08 THROUGH 491003.88 101249.81 THROUGH 491547.53 101370.90 THROUGH 492029.80 101481.91 THROUGH 492617.29 101613.11 THROUGH 493160.94 101734.22 THROUGH 493748.41 101825.03 TO 494142.98 101915.88. 4. The baseline described in Paragraph 3 above shall be fixed as of the date of this decree for the purposes of determining the Submerged Lands Act grant to the State of Alabama and shall from that date no longer be ambulatory. 5. The parties shall bear their own costs of these proceedings. 6. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as from time to time may be deemed necessary or advisable to effectuate and supplement the decree and the rights of the respective parties. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

K

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. In Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803 (1989), we held that a State violates the constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity when it taxes retirement benefits paid by the Federal Government but exempts from taxation all retirement benefits paid by the State or its political subdivisions. Relying on the retroactivity analysis of Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971), the Supreme Court of Virginia twice refused to apply Davis to taxes imposed before Davis was decided. In accord with Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314 (1987), and James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U. S. 529 (1991), we hold that this Court’s application of a rule of federal law to the parties before the Court requires every court to give retroactive effect to that decision. We therefore reverse. I The Michigan tax scheme at issue in Davis “exempted] from taxation all retirement benefits paid by the State or its political subdivisions, but leviefd] an income tax on retirement benefits paid by . . . the Federal Government.” 489 U. S., at 805. We held that the United States had not consented under 4 U. S. C. § 111 to this discriminatory imposition of a heavier tax burden on federal benefits than on state and local benefits. 489 U. S., at 808-817. Because Michigan “conceded that a refund [was] appropriate,” we recognized that federal retirees were entitled to a refund of taxes “paid ... pursuant to this invalid tax scheme.” Id., at 817. Like Michigan, Virginia exempted state and local employees’ retirement benefits from state income taxation while taxing federal retirement benefits. Va. Code Ann. § 58.1— 322(c)(3) (Supp. 1988). In response to Davis, Virginia repealed its exemption for state and local government employees. 1989 Va. Acts, Special Sess. II, ch. 3. It also enacted a special statute of limitations for refund claims made in light of Davis. Under this statute, taxpayers may seek a refund of state taxes imposed on federal retirement benefits in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988 for up to one year from the date of the final judicial resolution of whether Virginia must refund these taxes. Va. Code Ann. §58.1-1823(b) (Supp. 1992). Petitioners, 421 federal civil service and military retirees, sought a refund of taxes “erroneously or improperly assessed” in violation of Davis’ nondiscrimination principle. Va. Code Ann. §58.1-1826 (1991). The trial court denied relief. Law No. CL891080 (Va. Cir. Ct., Mar. 12, 1990). Applying the factors set forth in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, supra, at 106-107, the court reasoned that “Davis decided an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed,” that “prospective application of Davis will not retard its operation,” and that “retroactive application would result in inequity, injustice and hardship.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 20a. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed. Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 241 Va. 232, 401 S. E. 2d 868 (1991). It too concluded, after consulting Chevron and the plurality opinion in American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith, 496 U. S. 167 (1990), that “the Davis decision is not to be applied retroactively.” 241 Va., at 240, 401 S. E. 2d, at 873. The court also rejected petitioners’ contention that “refunds [were] due as a matter of state law.” Ibid. It concluded that “because the Davis decision is not to be applied retroactively, the pre-Davis assessments were neither erroneous nor improper” under Virginia’s tax refund statute. Id., at 241, 401 S. E. 2d, at 873. As a matter of Virginia law, the court held, a “ruling declaring a taxing scheme unconstitutional is to be applied prospectively only.” Ibid. This rationale supplied “another reason” for refusing relief. Ibid. Even as the Virginia courts were denying relief to petitioners, we were confronting a similar retroactivity problem in James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U. S. 529 (1991). At issue was Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263 (1984), which prohibited States from imposing higher excise taxes on imported alcoholic beverages than on local products. The Supreme Court of Georgia had used the analysis described in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson to deny retroactive effect to a decision of this Court. Six Members of this Court disagreed, concluding instead that Bacchus must be applied retroactively to claims arising from facts predating that decision. Beam, 501 U. S., at 532 (opinion of Souter, J.); id., at 544-545 (White, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 547-548 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 548-549 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). After deciding Beam, we vacated the judgment in Harper and remanded for further consideration. 501 U. S. 1247 (1991). On remand, the Supreme Court of Virginia again denied tax relief. 242 Va. 322, 410 S. E. 2d 629 (1991). It reasoned that because Michigan did not contest the Davis plaintiffs’ entitlement to a refund, this Court “made no . . . ruling” regarding the retroactive application of its rule “to the litigants in that case.” 242 Va., at 326, 410 S. E. 2d, at 631. Concluding that Beam did not foreclose application of Chevron’s retroactivity analysis because “the retroactivity issue was not decided in Davis,” 242 Va., at 326, 410 S. E. 2d, at 631, the court “reaffirmed] [its] prior decision in all respects,” id., at 327, 410 S. E. 2d, at 632. When we decided Davis, 23 States gave preferential tax treatment to benefits received by employees of state and local governments relative to the tax treatment of benefits received by federal employees. Like the Supreme Court of Virginia, several other state courts have refused to accord full retroactive effect to Davis as a controlling statement of federal law. Two of the courts refusing to apply Davis retroactively have done so after this Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Beam. See Bass v. South Carolina, 501 U. S. 1246 (1991); Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 501 U. S. 1247 (1991); Lewy v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, decided with Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 501 U. S. 1247 (1991). By contrast, the Supreme Court of Arkansas has concluded as a matter of federal law that Davis applies retroactively. Pledger v. Bosnick, 306 Ark. 45, 54-56, 811 S. W. 2d 286, 292-293 (1991), cert. pending, No. 91-375. Cf. Reich v. Collins, 262 Ga. 625, 422 S. E. 2d 846 (1992) (holding that Davis applies retroactively but reasoning that state law precluded a refund), cert, pending, Nos. 92-1276 and 92-1453. After the Supreme Court of Virginia reaffirmed its original decision, we granted certiorari a second time. 504 U. S. 907 (1992). We now reverse. II “[B]oth the common law and our own decisions” have “recognized a general rule of retrospective effect for the constitutional decisions of this Court.” Robinson v. Neil, 409 U. S. 505, 507 (1973). Nothing in the Constitution alters the fundamental rule of “retrospective operation” that has governed “[judicial decisions ... for near a thousand years.” Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co., 215 U. S. 349, 372 (1910) (Holmes, J., dissenting). In Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965), however, we developed a doctrine under which we could deny retroactive effect to a newly announced rule of criminal law. Under Linkletter, a decision to confine a new rule to prospective application rested on the purpose of the new rule, the reliance placed upon the previous view of the law, and “the effect on the administration of justice of a retrospective application” of the new rule. Id., at 636 (limiting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961)). In the civil context, we similarly permitted the denial of retroactive effect to “a new principle of law” if such a limitation would avoid “ ‘injustice or hardship’ ” without unduly undermining the “purpose and effect” of the new rule. Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S., at 106-107 (quoting Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701, 706 (1969)). We subsequently overruled Linkletter in Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314 (1987), and eliminated limits on retro-activity in the criminal context by holding that all “newly declared . . . rule[s]” must be applied retroactively to all “criminal cases pending on direct review.” Id., at 322. This holding rested on two “basic norms of constitutional adjudication.” Ibid. First, we reasoned that “the nature of judicial review” strips us of the quintessentially “legislative]” prerogative to make rules of law retroactive or prospective as we see fit. Ibid. Second, we concluded that “selective application of new rules violates the principle of treating similarly situated [parties] the same.” Id., at 323. Dicta in Griffith, however, stated that “civil retroactivity .. .. continue[d] to be governed by the standard announced in Chevron Oil.” Id., at 322, n. 8. We divided over the meaning of this dicta in American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith, 496 U. S. 167 (1990). The four Justices in the plurality used “the Chevron Oil test” to consider whether to confine “the application of [American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Scheiner, 483 U. S. 266 (1987),] to taxation of highway use prior to June 23, 1987, the date we decided Scheiner.” Id., at 179 (opinion of O’Connor, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and White and Kennedy, JJ.). Four other Justices rejected the plurality’s “anomalous approach” to retroactivity and declined to hold that “the law applicable to a particular case is that law which the parties believe in good faith to be applicable to the case.” Id., at 219 (Stevens, J., dissenting, joined by Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ.). Finally, despite concurring in the judgment, Justice Scalia “share[d]” the dissent’s “perception that prospective decisionmaking is incompatible with the judicial role.” Id,., at 201. Griffith and American Trucking thus left unresolved the precise extent to which the presumptively retroactive effect of this Court’s decisions may be altered in civil cases. But we have since adopted a rule requiring the retroactive application of a civil decision such as Davis. Although James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U. S. 529 (1991), did not produce a unified opinion for the Court, a majority of Justices agreed that a rule of federal law, once announced and applied to the parties to the controversy, must be given full retroactive effect by all courts adjudicating federal law. In announcing the judgment of the Court, Justice Souter laid down a rule for determining the retroactive effect of a civil decision: After the case announcing any rule of federal law has “applied] that rule with respect to the litigants” before the court, no court may “refuse to apply [that] rule ... retroactively.” Id., at 540 (opinion of Souter, J., joined by Stevens, J.). Justice Souter’s view of retroactivity superseded “any claim based on a Chevron Oil analysis.” Ibid. Justice White likewise concluded that a decision “extending the benefit of the judgment” to the winning party “is to be applied to other litigants whose cases were not final at the time of the [first] decision.” Id., at 544 (opinion concurring in judgment). Three other Justices agreed that “our judicial responsibility . . . requires] retroactive application of each . . . rule we announce.” Id., at 548 (Blackmun, J., joined by Marshall and Scalia, JJ., concurring in judgment). See also id., at 548-549 (Scalia, J., joined by Marshall and Blackmun, JJ., concurring in judgment). Beam controls this case, and we accordingly adopt a rule that fairly reflects the position of a majority of Justices in Beam: When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our announcement of the rule. This rule extends Griffith’s ban against “selective application of new rules.” 479 U. S., at 323. Mindful of the “basic norms of constitutional adjudication” that animated our view of retroactivity in the criminal context, id., at 322, we now prohibit the erection of selective temporal barriers to the application of federal law in noncriminal cases. In both civil and criminal cases, we can scarcely permit “the substantive law [to] shift and spring” according to “the particular equities of [individual parties’] claims” of actual reliance on an old rule and of harm from a retroactive application of the new rule. Beam, supra, at 543 (opinion of Souter, J.). Our approach to retroactivity heeds the admonition that “[t]he Court has no more constitutional authority in civil cases than in criminal cases to disregard current law or to treat similarly situated litigants differently.” American Trucking, supra, at 214 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The Supreme Court of Virginia “applied] the three-pronged Chevron Oil test in deciding the retroactivity issue” presented by this litigation. 242 Va., at 326, 410 S. E. 2d, at 631. When this Court does not “reserve the question whether its holding should be applied to the parties before it,” however, an opinion announcing a rule of federal law “is properly understood to have followed the normal rule of retroactive application” and must be “read to hold . . . that its rule should apply retroactively to the litigants then before the Court.” Beam, 501 U. S., at 539 (opinion of Souter, J.). Accord, id., at 544-545 (White, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 550 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). Furthermore, the legal imperative “to apply a rule of federal law retroactively after the case announcing the rule has already done so” must “prevai[l] over any claim based on a Chevron Oil analysis.” Id., at 540 (opinion of Souter, J.). In an effort to distinguish Davis, the Supreme Court of Virginia surmised that this Court had “made no . . . ruling” about the application of the rule announced in Davis “retroactively to the litigants in that case.” 242 Va., at 326, 410 S. E. 2d, at 631. “[B]ecause the retroactivity issue was not decided in Davis,” the court believed that it was “not foreclosed by precedent from applying the three-pronged Chevron Oil test in deciding the retroactivity issue in the present case.” Ibid. We disagree. Davis did not hold that preferential state tax treatment of state and local employee pensions, though constitutionally invalid in the future, should be upheld as to all events predating the announcement of Davis. The governmental appellee in Davis “conceded that a refund [would have been] appropriate” if we were to conclude that “the Michigan Income Tax Act violate[d] principles of intergovernmental tax immunity by favoring retired state and local governmental employees over retired federal employees.” 489 U. S., at 817. We stated that “to the extent appellant has paid taxes pursuant to this invalid tax scheme, he is entitled to a refund.” Ibid. Far from reserving the retroactivity question, our response to the appellee’s concession constituted a retroactive application of the rule announced in Davis to the parties before the Court. Because a decision to accord solely prospective effect to Davis would have foreclosed any discussion of remedial issues, our “consideration of remedial issues” meant “necessarily” that we retroactively applied the rule we announced in Davis to the litigants before us. Beam, supra, at 539 (opinion of Souter, J.). Therefore, under Griffith, Beam, and the retroactivity approach we adopt today, the Supreme Court of Virginia must apply Davis in petitioners’ refund action. Ill Respondent Virginia Department of Taxation defends the judgment below as resting on an independent and adequate state ground that relieved the Supreme Court of Virginia of any obligation to apply Davis to events occurring before our announcement of that decision. Petitioners had contended that “even if the Davis decision applie[d] prospectively only,” they were entitled to relief under Virginia’s tax refund statute, Va. Code Ann. §58.1-1826 (1991). Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 241 Va., at 241, 401 S. E. 2d, at 873. The Virginia court rejected their argument. It first reasoned that because Davis did not apply retroactively, tax assessments predating Davis were “neither erroneous nor improper within the meaning” of Virginia’s tax statute. Ibid. The court then offered “another reason” for rejecting petitioners’ “state-law contention”: “We previously have held that this Court’s ruling declaring a taxing scheme unconstitutional is to be applied prospectively only.” Ibid, (citing Perkins v. Albemarle County, 214 Va. 240, 198 S. E. 2d 626, aff’d and modified on rehearing, 214 Va. 416, 200 S. E. 2d 566 (1973); Capehart v. City of Chesapeake, No. 5459 (Va. Cir. Ct., Oct. 16, 1974), appeal denied, 215 Va. xlvii, cert. denied, 423 U. S. 875 (1975)). The formulation of this state-law retroactivity doctrine — that “consideration should be given to the purpose of the new rule, the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new rule,” Fountain v. Fountain, 214 Va. 347, 348, 200 S. E. 2d 513, 514 (1973), cert. denied, 416 U. S. 939 (1974), quoted in 241 Va., at 241, 401 S. E. 2d, at 874 — suggests that the Supreme Court of Virginia has simply incorporated into state law the three-pronged analysis of Chevron Oil, 404 U. S., at 106-107, and the criminal retroactivity cases overruled by Griffith, see, e. g., Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 297 (1967). We reject the department’s defense of the decision below. The Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, does not allow federal retroactivity doctrine to be supplanted by the invocation of a contrary approach to retroactivity under state law. Whatever freedom state courts may enjoy to limit the retroactive operation of their own interpretations of state law, see Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U. S. 358, 364-366 (1932), cannot extend to their interpretations of federal law. See National Mines Corp. v. Caryl, 497 U. S. 922, 923 (1990) (per curiam); Ash-land Oil, Inc. v. Caryl, 497 U. S. 916, 917 (1990) (per curiam). We also decline the Department of Taxation’s invitation to affirm the judgment as resting on the independent and adequate ground that Virginia’s law of remedies offered no “retrospective refund remedy for taxable years concluded before Davis” was announced. Brief for Respondent 33. The Virginia Supreme Court’s conclusion that the challenged tax assessments were “neither erroneous nor improper within the meaning” of the refund statute rested solely on the court’s determination that Davis did not apply retroactively. Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, supra, at 241, 401 S. E. 2d, at 873. Because we have decided that Davis applies retroactively to the tax years at issue in petitioners’ refund action, we reverse the judgment below. We do not enter judgment for petitioners, however, because federal law does not necessarily entitle them to a refund. Rather, the Constitution requires Virginia “to provide relief consistent with federal due process principles.” American Trucking, 496 U. S., at 181 (plurality opinion). Under the Due Process Clause, U. S. Const., Arndt. 14, § 1, “a State found to have imposed an impermissibly discriminatory tax retains flexibility in responding to this determination.” McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business Regulation, 496 U. S. 18, 39-40 (1990). If Virginia “offers a meaningful opportunity for taxpayers to withhold contested tax assessments and to challenge their validity in a predeprivation hearing,” the “availability of a predeprivation hearing constitutes a procedural safeguard . . . sufficient by itself to satisfy the Due Process Clause.” Id., at 38, n. 21. On the other hand, if no such predeprivation remedy exists, “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment obligates the State to provide meaningful backward-looking relief to rectify any unconstitutional deprivation.” Id., at 31 (footnotes omitted). In providing such relief, a State may either award full refunds to those burdened by an unlawful tax or issue some other order that “ereate[s] in hindsight a nondiscriminatory scheme.” Id., at 40. Cf. Davis, 489 U. S., at 818 (suggesting that a State’s failure to respect intergovernmental tax immunity could be cured “either by extending [a discriminatory] tax exemption to retired federal employees ... or by eliminating the exemption for retired state and local government employees”). The constitutional sufficiency of any remedy thus turns (at least initially) on whether Virginia law “provide[s] a[n] [adequate] form of ‘predeprivation process,’ for example, by authorizing taxpayers to bring suit to enjoin imposition of a tax prior to its payment, or by allowing taxpayers to withhold payment and then interpose their objections as defenses in a tax enforcement proceeding.” McKesson, 496 U. S., at 36-37. Because this issue has not been properly presented, we leave to Virginia courts this question of state law and the performance of other tasks pertaining to the crafting of any appropriate remedy. Virginia “is free to choose which form of relief it will provide, so long as that relief satisfies the minimum federal requirements we have outlined.” Id., at 51-52. State law may provide relief beyond the demands of federal due process, id., at 52, n. 36, but under no circumstances may it confine petitioners to a lesser remedy, see id., at 44-51 IV We reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and we remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. So ordered. “The United States consents to the taxation of pay or compensation for personal service as an officer or employee of the United States ... by a duly constituted taxing authority having jurisdiction, if the taxation does not discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of the pay or compensation.” 4 U. S. C. § 111. We have since followed Davis and held that a State violates intergovernmental tax immunity and 4 U. S. C. § 111 when it “taxes the benefits received from the United States by military retirees but does not tax the benefits received by retired state and local government employees.” Barker v. Kansas, 503 U. S. 594, 596 (1992). Applications for tax refunds generally must be made within three years of the assessment. Va. Code Ann. §68.1-1825 (1991). As of the date we decided Davis, this statute of limitations would have barred all actions seeking refunds from taxes imposed before 1985. “First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. Second, it has been stressed that ‘we must . . . weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.’ Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application . . . .” Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S., at 106-107 (citations omitted). . E.g., Ala. Code § 36-27-28 (1991), Ala. Code § 40-18-19 (1985); Iowa Code § 97A.12 (1984), repealed, 1989 Iowa Acts, ch. 228, § 10 (repeal retro active to Jan. 1, 1989); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 47:44.1 (West Supp. 1990); Miss. Code Ann. § 25-11-129 (1972); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 86.190 (1971), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 104.540 (1989); Mont. Code Ann. § 15-30-111(2) (1987); N. Y. Tax Law § 612(c)(3) (McKinney 1987); Utah Code Ann. § 49-1-608 (1989). See generally Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 241 Va. 232, 237, n. 2, 401 S. E. 2d 868, 871, n. 2 (1991). . Bohn v. Waddell, 167 Ariz. 344, 349, 807 P. 2d 1, 6 (Tax Ct. 1991); Sheehy v. State, 250 Mont. 437, 820 P. 2d 1257 (1991), cert. pending, No. 91-1473; Duffy v. Wetzler, 174 App. Div. 2d 253, 265, 579 N. Y. S. 2d 684, 691, appeal denied, 80 N. Y. 2d 890, 600 N. E. 2d 627 (1992), cert. pend ing, No. 92-521; Swanson v. State, 329 N. C. 576, 581-584, 407 S. E. 2d 791, 793-795 (1991), aff’d on reh’g, 330 N. C. 390, 410 S. E. 2d 490 (1991), cert. pending, No. 91-1436; Ragsdale v. Department of Revenue, 11 Ore. Tax 440 (1990), aff’d on other grounds, 312 Ore. 529, 823 P. 2d 971 (1992); Bass v. State, 307 S. C. 113, 121-122, 414 S. E. 2d 110, 114-115 (1992), cert. pending, No. 91-1697. Several other state courts have ordered refunds as a matter of state law in claims based on Davis. See, e. g., Kuhn v. State, 817 P. 2d 101, 109-110 (Colo. 1991); Hackman v. Director of Revenue, 771 S. W. 2d 77, 80-81 (Mo. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U. S. 1019 (1990). Accord, e. g., Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U. S. 406 (1966) (limiting Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 (1965)); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966) (limiting Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966)); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293 (1967) (limiting United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967), and Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263 (1967)). We need not debate whether Chevron Oil represents a true “choice-of-law principle” or merely “a remedial principle for the exercise of equitable discretion by federal courts.” American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith, 496 U. S. 167, 220 (1990) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Compare id., at 191— 197 (plurality opinion) (treating Chevron Oil as a choice-of-law rule), with id., at 218-224 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (treating Chevron Oil as a remedial doctrine). Regardless of how Chevron Oil is characterized, our decision today makes it clear that “the Chevron Oil test cannot determine the choice of law by relying on the equities of the particular case” and that the federal law applicable to a particular case does not turn on “whether [litigants] actually relied on [an] old rule [or] how they would suffer from retroactive application” of a new one. James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U. S. 529, 543 (1991) (opinion of Souter, J.). A State incurs this obligation when it “places a taxpayer under duress promptly to pay a tax when due and relegates him to a postpayment refund action in which he can challenge the tax’s legality.” McKesson, 496 U. S., at 31. A State that “establish[es] various sanctions and summary remedies designed” to prompt taxpayers to “tender . . . payments before their objections are entertained and resolved” does not provide taxpayers “a meaningful opportunity to withhold payment and to obtain a predeprivation determination of the tax assessment’s validity.” Id., at 38 (emphasis in original). Such limitations impose constitutionally significant “ ‘duress’ ” because a tax payment rendered under these circumstances must be treated as an effort “to avoid financial sanctions or a seizure of real or personal property.” Id., at 38, n. 21. The State accordingly may not confine a taxpayer under duress to prospective relief. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

J

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases, together with Weinberger v. Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., post, p. 645, CIBA Corp. v. Weinberger, post, p. 640, and USV Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Weinberger, post, p. 655, all here on certiorari, raise a series of questions under the 1962 amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. 52 Stat. 1040. The 1938 Act, which established a system of premarketing clearance for drugs, prohibited the introduction into commerce of any “new drug” unless a new drug application (NDA) filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was effective with respect to that drug. § 505 (a), 52 Stat. 1052. Under the 1938 Act a “new drug” was one not generally recognized by qualified experts as safe for its intended use. §201 (p)(1). The Government could sue to enjoin violations, prosecute criminally, and seize and condemn the articles. §§ 301 (d), 302 (a), 303, 304. The Act established procedures for filing NDA’s, § 505 (b), and provided standards under which, after notice and hearing, FDA could refuse to allow an NDA to become effective, §§505 (c) and (d), or could suspend an NDA in effect on the basis of new evidence that the drug was unsafe. § 505 (e). Orders denying or suspending an NDA could be reviewed in a district court on the administrative record. § 505 (h). The 1962 Act amended §201 (p)(l) of the 1938 Act to define a “new drug” as a drug not generally recognized among experts as effective as well as safe for its intended use. 21 U. S. C. § 321 (p)(1). A new drug, as now defined, still may not be marketed unless an NDA is in effect. FDA is now directed to refuse approval of an NDA and to withdraw any prior approval if “substantial evidence” that the drug is effective for its intended use is lacking. 21 U. S. C. §§ 355 (d) and (e). Thus, the basic clearance system, requiring FDA approval of an NDA before a “new drug” may be lawfully marketed, was continued, except that FDA now either must approve or disapprove an application within 180 days. 21 U. S. C. § 355 (c). (Under the 1938 Act an application automatically became effective if it was not disapproved.) Judicial review was transferred to the courts of appeals. 21 U. S. C. § 355 (h). Since the Act as amended requires affirmative agency approval, all NDA’s “effective” prior to 1962 were deemed “approved” under the new definition, and manufacturers were given two years to develop substantial evidence of effectiveness, during which previously approved NDA’s could not be withdrawn by FDA for a drug’s lack of effectiveness. The 1962 amendments also contain a “grandfather” clause exempting from the effectiveness requirements any drug which on the day preceding enactment (1) was commercially used or sold in the United States, (2) was not a “new drug” as defined in the 1938 Act (it being generally recognized as safe), and (3) “was not covered by an effective application” for a new drug under the 1938 Act. Between 1938 and 1962 FDA had permitted 9,457 NDA’s to become effective. Of these, some 4,000 were still on the market. In addition, there were thousands of drugs which manufacturers had marketed without applying to FDA for clearance. These drugs, known as “me-toos,” are similar to or identical with drugs with effective NDA’s and are marketed in reliance on the “pioneer” drug application approved by FDA. In some cases, a manufacturer obtained an advisory opinion letter from FDA that its product was generally recognized among experts as safe. To aid in its task of fulfilling the statutory mandate to review all marketed drugs for their therapeutic efficacy, whether or not previously approved, FDA retained the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (NAS-NRC) to create expert panels to review by class the efficacy of each approved drug. Holders of NDA’s were invited to furnish the panels with the best available data to establish the effectiveness of their drugs. The panels reported to FDA; and on January 23, 1968, FDA announced its policy of applying the NAS-NRC efficacy findings to all drugs, including the related “me-too” drugs. I Respondent in No. 72-394, Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., had filed an application under the 1938 Act for a drug called Lutrexin, recommended by Hynson for use in the treatment of premature labor, threatened and habitual abortion, and dysmenorrhea. FDA informed Hynson that Hynson’s studies submitted with the application were not sufficiently well controlled to justify the claims of effectiveness and urged Hynson not to represent the drug as useful for threatened and habitual abortion. But FDA allowed the application to become effective, since the 1938 Act permitted evaluation of a new drug solely on the grounds of its safety. Before the 1962 amendments Hynson filed an application for a related drug which FDA, again on the basis of the test of safety, allowed to become effective. When the 1962 amendments became effective and NAS-NRC undertook to appraise the efficacy of drugs theretofore approved as safe, Hynson submitted a list of literature references, a copy of an unpublished study, and a representative sample testimonial letter on behalf of Lutrexin. The panel of NAS-NRC working in the relevant field reported to FDA that Hyn-son’s claims for effectiveness of the drug were either inappropriate or unwarranted in the absence of submission of further appropriate documentation. At the invitation of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Hynson submitted additional data. But the Commissioner concluded that this additional information was inadequate and published notice of his intention to withdraw approval of the NDA’s covering the drug, offering Hynson the opportunity for a prewithdrawal hearing. Before the hearing could take place, Hynson brought suit in the District Court for a declaratory judgment that the drugs in question were exempt from the efficacy review provisions of the 1962 amendments or, alternatively, that there was no lack of substantial evidence of the drug’s efficacy. The Government’s motion to dismiss was granted, the District Court ruling that FDA had primary jurisdiction and that Hynson had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. While the District Court litigation was pending, FDA promulgated new regulations establishing minimal standards for “adequate and well-controlled investigations” and limiting the right to a hearing to those applicants who could proffer at least some evidence meeting those standards. Although Hynson maintained that it was not subject to the new regulations because its initial request for a hearing predated their issuance, it renewed its request and submitted the material which it claimed constituted “substantial evidence” of Lutrexin’s effectiveness. The Commissioner denied the request for a hearing and withdrew the NDA for Lutrexin. He ruled that Lutrexin is not exempt from the 1962 amendments and that Hynson had not submitted adequate evidence that Lutrexin is not a new drug or is effective. The Court of Appeals reversed, 461 F. 2d 215, holding that while the drug in question was not exempt, Hynson was entitled to a hearing on the substantial-evidence question. Section 505 (e) directs FDA to withdraw approval of an NDA if the manufacturer fails to carry the burden of showing there is “substantial evidence” respecting the efficacy of the drug. As the Court of Appeals says, “substantial evidence” was substituted for “preponderance” of the evidence. 461 F. 2d, at 220. The Act and the Regulations, in their reduction of that standard to detailed guidelines, make FDA’s so-called administrative summary judgment procedure appropriate. The general contours of “substantial evidence” are defined by § 505 (d) of the Act to include “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug involved, on the basis of which it could fairly and responsibly be concluded by such experts that the drug will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling or proposed labeling thereof.” 21 U. S. C. § 355 (d). Acting pursuant to his “authority to promulgate regulations for the efficient enforcement” of the Act, § 701 (a), 21 U. S. C. §371 (a), the Commissioner has detailed the “principles... recognized by the scientific community as the essentials of adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations. They provide the basis for the determination whether there is ‘substantial evidence’ to support the claims of effectiveness for ‘new drugs’... 21 CFB, § 130.12 (a)(5)(h). They include a “plan or protocol” setting forth the objective of the study and an adequate method for selecting appropriate subjects, explaining the methods of observation and steps taken to minimize bias, providing a comparison by one of four “recognized” methods of the results of treatment or diagnosis with a control, and summarizing the methods of analysis, including any appropriate statistical methods. Id., § 130.12 (a)(5)(ii)(a). No investigation will be considered “adequate for approval of a new drug” unless the test drug is “standardized as to identity, strength, quality, purity, and dosage form to give significance to the results of the investigation.” Id., § 130.12 (a) (5) (ii) (b). Finally, the regulation provides that “ [uncontrolled studies or partially controlled studies are not acceptable as the sole basis for the approval of claims of effectiveness. Such studies, carefully conducted and documented, may provide corroborative support.... Isolated case reports, random experience, and reports lacking the details which permit scientific evaluation will not be considered.” Id., § 130.12 (a) (5) (ii) (c). Lower courts have upheld the validity of these regulations, and it is not disputed here that they express well-established principles of scientific investigation. Moreover, their strict and demanding standards, barring anecdotal evidence indicating that doctors “believe” in the efficacy of a drug, are amply justified by the legislative history. The hearings underlying the 1962 Act show a marked concern that impressions or beliefs of physicians, no matter how fervently held, are treacherous. Congress in its definition of “substantial evidence” in § 505 (d) wrote the requirement of “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations.” The Senate Report makes clear that an abrupt departure was being taken from old norms for marketing drugs. There had been mounting concern over efficacy of drugs as well as their safety. The Report stated: “[A] claim could be rejected if it were found (a) that the investigations were not 'adequate; (b) that they were not 'well controlled’; (c) that they had been conducted by experts not qualified to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug for which the application is made; or (d) that the conclusions drawn by such experts could not fairly and responsibly be derived from their investigations.” To be sure, the Act requires FDA to give “due notice and opportunity for hearing to the applicant” before it can withdraw its approval of an NDA. § 505 (e), 21 U. S. C. §355 (e). FDA, however, by regulation, requires any applicant who desires a hearing to submit reasons “why the application... should not be withdrawn, together with a well-organized and full-factual analysis of the clinical and other investigational data he is prepared to prove in support of his opposition to the notice of opportunity for a hearing.... When it clearly appears from the data in the application and from the reasons and factual analysis in the request for the hearing that there is no genuine and substantial issue of fact..., e. g., no adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations to support the claims of effectiveness,” the Commissioner may deny a hearing and enter an order withdrawing the application based solely on these data. 21 CFR § 130.14 (b). What the agency has said, then, is that it will not provide a formal hearing where it is apparent at the threshold that the applicant has not tendered any evidence which on its face meets the statutory standards as particularized by the regulations. The propriety of such a procedure was decided in United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U. S. 192, 205, and FPC v. Texaco, 377 U. S. 33, 39. We said in Texaco: “[T]he statutory requirement for a hearing under § 7 [of the Natural Gas Act] does not preclude the Commission from particularizing statutory standards through the rulemaking process and barring at the threshold those who neither measure up to them nor show reasons why in the public interest the rule should be waived.” Ibid. There can be no question that to prevail at a hearing an applicant must furnish evidence stemming from “adequate and well-controlled investigations.” We cannot impute to Congress the design of requiring, nor does due process demand, a hearing when it appears conclusively from the applicant's “pleadings” that the application cannot succeed. The NAS-NRC panels evaluated approximately 16,500 claims made on behalf of the 4,000 drugs marketed pursuant to effective NDA's in 1962. Seventy percent of these claims were found not to be supported by substantial evidence of effectiveness, and only 434 drugs were found effective for all their claimed uses. If FDA were required automatically to hold a hearing for each product whose efficacy was questioned by the NAS-NRC study, even though many hearings would be an exericse in futility, we have no doubt that it could not fulfill its statutory mandate to remove from the market all those drugs which do not meet the effectiveness requirements of the Act. If this were a case involving trial by jury as provided in the Seventh Amendment, there would be sharper limitations on the use of summary judgment, as our decisions reveal. See, e. g., Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 153-161; White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U. S. 253. But Congress surely has great leeway in setting standards for releasing on the public, drugs which may well be miracles or, on the other hand, merely easy money-making schemes through use of fraudulent articles labeled in mysterious scientific dress. The standard of “well-controlled investigations” particularized by the regulations is a protective measure designed to ferret out those drugs for which there is no affirmative, reliable evidence of effectiveness. The drug manufacturers have full and precise notice of the evidence they must present to sustain their NDA’s, and under these circumstances we find PDA hearing regulations unexceptionable on any statutory or constitutional ground. Our conclusion that the summary judgment procedure of FDA is valid does not end the matter, for Hynson argues that its submission to FDA satisfied its threshold burden. In reviewing an order of the Commissioner denying a hearing, a court of appeals must determine whether the Commissioner’s findings accurately reflect the study in question and if they do, whether the deficiencies he finds conclusively render the study inadequate or uncontrolled in light of the pertinent regulations. There is a contrariety of opinion within the Court concerning the adequacy of Hynson’s submission. Since a majority are of the view that the submission was sufficient to warrant a hearing, we affirm the Court of Appeals on that phase of the case. II No. 72-414 is a cross-petition by Hynson from the judgment of the Court of Appeals. This cross-petition raises questions concerning the “new drug” provisions of the 1962 amendments. The Court of Appeals suggested that only a district court has authority to determine whether Lutrexin is a “new drug.” The Government contends that the Commissioner has authority to determine new drug status in proceedings to withdraw approval of the product’s NDA under § 505 (e). Although Hynson agrees, some of the manufacturers, parties to other suits in this group of cases, advance the contrary view. Prior to 1938 there was no machinery for the pre-marketing approval of drugs sold in commerce. Under the 1906 Act, 34 Stat. 768, adulterated and misbranded drugs were narrowly defined, and the Act provided only criminal sanctions and seizure by libel for condemnation. As previously noted, the 1938 Act provided for regulatory clearance of drugs prior to marketing and for administrative suspension of any clearance if required in the interests of public safety. To introduce a new drug an application had to be effective with respect to that drug. The application was to become effective within a fixed period unless the agency after notice and opportunity for hearing refused to permit it to become effective, finding that it could not determine from existing evidence or had not been shown that it was safe. 52 Stat. 1041-1042, 1052. Any NDA could be suspended if clinical experience or new testing showed that the drug was not safe. Id., at 1053. Orders denying or suspending an NDA were reviewable on the administrative record in a district court. Ibid. Marketing a new drug without an effective NDA could be enjoined or made the basis of a criminal prosecution, or the drug could be seized in libel and condemnation proceedings. There was a steady stream of NDA’s under that Act supported by voluminous data. Many new drugs claiming “me-too” status were marketed illegally or were launched with an advisory opinion of FDA that they were recognized as safe. It is estimated that by 1969 there were five identical or similar drugs for every drug with an effective NDA. Enormous administrative problems were created. Each NDA contained about 30 volumes, a stack 10 to 12 feet high; and some contained as many as 400 volumes of data. It is clear to us that FDA has power to determine whether particular drugs require an approved NDA in order to be sold to the public. FDA is indeed the administrative agency selected by Congress to administer the Act, and it cannot administer the Act intelligently and rationally unless it has authority to determine what drugs are “new drugs” under § 201 (p) and whether they are exempt from the efficacy requirements of the 1962 amendments by the grandfather clause of § 107 (c)(4). Regulatory agencies have by the requirements of particular statutes usually proceeded on a case-by-case basis, giving each person subject to regulation separate hearings. But there is not always a constitutional reason why that must be done. United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U. S. 192, is one example. We there upheld rules of the Federal Communications Commission limiting the number of broadcasting stations a single individual might own, saying that that was a proper exercise of the agency's “rule-making authority necessary for the orderly conduct of its business.” Id., at 202. The comprehensive, rather than the individual, treatment may indeed be necessary for quick effective relief. See Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U. S. 747. A generic drug — which is found to be unsafe and/or lacking in efficacy — may be manufactured by several persons or manufacturers. To require separate judicial proceedings to be brought against each, as if each were the owner of a Black Acre being condemned, would be to create delay where in the interests of public health there should be prompt action. A single administrative proceeding in which each manufacturer may be heard is constitutionally permissible measured by the requirements of procedural due process. FDA maintains that a withdrawal of any NDA approval covers all “me-too” drugs. For the reasons stated, that procedure is a permissible one where every manufacturer of a challenged drug has an opportunity to be heard. FDA under § 554 of the Administrative Procedure Act may issue a declaratory order governing all drugs covered by a particular NDA. 5 U. S. C. § 554 (e). That section prescribes the procedures an agency must follow “in every case of adjudication required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing.” §554 (a). The industry maintains that § 554 (e) is of no avail to FDA because in a withdrawal proceeding a common issue is whether a drug is a “new drug.” That issue, it is argued, can be resolved only in a court proceeding where there is an adjudication “on the record of [a] hearing.” But that assumes an individualized hearing and adjudication as is common in regulatory proceedings. Section 554 (e), however, does not place administrative proceedings in that straitjacket. It provides that an agency “in its sound discretion, may issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty.” The termination of a controversy over a “new drug” may often be of prime importance. This is an age of ever-expanding dockets at the administrative as well as at the judicial level. If the administrative controls over drugs are to be efficient, they must be exercised with dispatch. Only paralysis would result if case-by-case battles in the courts were the only way to protect the public against unsafe or ineffective drugs. Moreover, if every “me-too” drug in a particular generic category had to be put to the test in court actions, great inequities might well result. It might take months to eliminate one “me-too” drug manufactured by one com.pany from the market. Meanwhile, competitors selling drugs in the same category would go scot-free until the tedious and laborious procedures of litigation reached them. We cannot believe that Congress engaged in such an exercise in futility when it enacted the 1962 amendments. That would in effect restore the enforcement provisions to the status they enjoyed under the rather primitive 1906 Act. We hold that FDA by reasons of § 554 (e) of the Administrative Procedure Act may issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy over a “new drug” or to remove any uncertainty whether a particular drug is a “new drug” within the meaning of § 201 (p)(1) of the 1938 Act. See Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136. It is argued, however, that the only lawful purpose of an FDA hearing is to allow it a method for determining which lawsuits it will file in the future. Yet that is only another version of the tactics of delay and procrastination which the industry offers as the way best to serve industry's needs. The public needs are, however, opposed and paramount. We do not accept the invitation to hold that FDA has no jurisdiction to determine whether a particular drug is a “new drug” and to decide whether an NDA should be withdrawn. Its determination that a product is a “new drug” or a “me-too” drug is, of course, reviewable. But its jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction is as essential to its effective operation as is a court’s like power. Cf. United States v. Shipp, 203 U. S. 563, 573. The heart of the new procedures designed by Congress is the grant of primary jurisdiction to FDA, the expert agency it created. FDA does not have the final say, for review may be had, not in a district court (except in a limited group of cases we will discuss), but in a court of appeals. FDA does not have unbridled discretion to do what it pleases. Its procedures must satisfy the rudiments of fair play. Judicial relief is available only after administrative remedies have been exhausted. It is argued that though FDA is empowered to decide the threshold-question whether the drug is a “new drug,” that power is only an incident to its power to approve or withdraw approval of NDA’s. Some manufacturers, however, have no NDA’s in effect and are not seeking approval of any drugs. Nevertheless, FDA may make a declaratory order that a drug is a “new drug.” While that order is not reviewable in the court of appeals under § 505 (h), it is reviewable by the district court under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U. S. C. §§ 701-704; Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 410; Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, supra, at 139-148. By analogy an agency order declaring a commodity not exempt from regulation is normally a declaratory order that is reviewable, as we held in Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U. S. 40. The question then presented is whether FDA properly exercised its jurisdiction in this instance. As indicated above, Hynson in requesting an administrative hearing also asked FDA to decide that Lutrexin is not a “new drug” within the meaning of § 201 (p) as amended, 21 U. S. C. § 321 (p). In addition, it asked that Lutrexin be “grandfathered” under § 107 (c) (4) of the 1962 amendments. The Commissioner rejected both claims. Finding that Hynson had failed to present any evidence of adequate and well-controlled investigations in support of Lutrexin’s effectiveness, he concluded that "there is no data base upon which experts can fairly and responsibly conclude that the safety and effectiveness of the drugs has been proven and is so well established that the drugs can be generally recognized among such experts as safe and effective for their intended uses.” The Commissioner also held that Lutrexin is not exempt under § 107 (c) (4) because its NDA, which had become effective in 1953, had not been withdrawn prior to the enactment of the 1962 amendments and thus was “covered by an effective application” within the meaning of § 107 (c)(4)(C). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commissioner’s ruling that Lutrexin is not exempt under § 107 (c) (4). It did not discuss his holding that Lutrexin currently is a “new drug.” Although we agree that the Commissioner properly ruled that Lutrexin does not come within § 107 (c)(4), we conclude that the Commissioner’s order with respect to Lutrexin’s “new drug” status must be vacated. The thrust of § 201 (p) is both qualitative and quantitative. The Act, however, nowhere defines what constitutes “general recognition” among experts. Hynson contends that the “lack of substantial evidence” is applicable only to proof of the actual effectiveness of drugs that fall within the definition of a new drug and not to the initial determination under § 201 (p) whether a drug is “generally recognized” as effective. It would rely solely on the testimony of physicians and the extant literature, evidence that has been characterized as “anecdotal.” We agree with FDA, however, that the statutory scheme and overriding purpose of the 1962 amendments compel the conclusion that the hurdle of “general recognition” of effectiveness requires at least “substantial evidence” of effectiveness for approval of an NDA. In the absence of any evidence of adequate and well-controlled investigation supporting the efficacy of Lutrexin, a fortiori Lutrexin would be a “new drug” subject to the provisions of the Act. As noted, the 1962 amendments for the first time gave FDA power to scrutinize and evaluate drugs for effectiveness as well as safety. The Act requires the Commissioner to disapprove any application when there is a lack of “substantial evidence” that the applicant’s drug is effective. § 505 (d), 21 U. S. C. § 355 (d). Similarly, he may withdraw approval for any drug if he subsequently determines that there is a lack of such evidence. § 505 (e), 21 U. S. C. § 355 (e). Evidence may be accepted only if it consists of “adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug involved....” § 505 (d), 21 TJ. S. C. §355 (d). The legislative history of the Act indicates that the test was to be a rigorous one. The “substantial evidence” requirement reflects the conclusion of Congress, based upon hearings, that clinical impressions of practicing physicians and poorly controlled experiments do not constitute an adequate basis for establishing efficacy. This policy underlies the regulations defining the contours of “substantial evidence”: “Uncontrolled studies or partially controlled studies are not acceptable as the sole basis for the approval of claims of effectiveness. Such studies, carefully conducted and documented, may provide corroborative support of well-controlled studies.... Isolated case reports, random experience, and reports lacking the details which permit scientific evaluation will not be considered.” 21 CFR § 130.12 (a) (5) (ii) (c). These efficacy requirements were not designed to be prospective only. Clearly, after the initial two-year moratorium on existing drugs, FDA has the power to withdraw an application which became effective prior to the adoption of the 1962 amendments, if the applicant has not provided "substantial evidence” of the drug’s efficacy. The Act plainly contemplates that such drugs will be evaluated on the basis of adequate and well-controlled investigations. Hynson would have us hold that withdrawal proceedings can be thwarted by a showing of general recognition of effectiveness based merely on expert testimony and reports with respect to investigations and clinical observation regardless of the controls used. But, we cannot construe § 201 (p) to deprive FDA of jurisdiction over a drug which, if subject to FDA regulation, could not be marketed because it had not passed the “substantial evidence” test. To do so “would be to impute to Congress a purpose to paralyze with one hand what it sought to promote with the other.” Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korp., 332 U. S. 480, 489. Moreover, the interpretation of § 201 (p) urged by Hynson is not consistent with the statutory scheme as it operates on a purely prospective basis. Under subsection (2), a drug cannot transcend “new drug” status until it has been used “to a material extent or for a material time.” Yet, a drug cannot be marketed lawfully before an NDA has been approved by the Commissioner on the basis of “substantial evidence.” As the Solicitor General argues, “the Act is designed so that drugs on the market, unless exempt, will have mustered the requisite scientifically reliable evidence of effectiveness long before they are in a position to drop out of active regulation by ceasing to be a ‘new drug.’ ” It is well established that our task in interpreting separate provisions of a single Act is to give the Act “the most harmonious, comprehensive meaning possible” in light of the legislative policy and purpose. Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korp., supra, at 488; see United States v. Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U. S. 784, 798. We accordingly have concluded that a drug can be “generally recognized” by experts as effective for intended use within the meaning of the Act only when that expert consensus is founded upon “substantial evidence” as defined in § 505 (d). We have held in No. 72-394, however, that the Commissioner was not justified in withdrawing Hynson’s NDA without a prior hearing on whether Hynson had submitted “substantial evidence” of Lutrexin’s effectiveness. Consequently, any ruling as to Lutrexin’s “new drug” status is premature and must await the outcome of this hearing. Finally, we cannot agree with Hynson that Lutrexin is exempt from the provisions of the Act by virtue of § 107 (c) (4) of the 1962 amendments. That section provides that no drug will be treated as a “new drug” if, on the day preceding the adoption of the amendments, the drug “(A) was commercially used or sold in the United States, (B) was not a new drug as defined by section 201 (p) of the basic Act as then in force, and (C) was not covered by an effective application under section 505 of that Act....” The applicability of this section turns solely on whether Lutrexin was “covered” by an effective NDA immediately prior to the adoption of the 1962 amendments. Hynson argues that when Lutrexin became generally recognized as safe and was no longer a “new drug,” its NDA ceased to be effective. That argument draws no statutory support. The 1938 Act did not provide any mechanism other than the Commissioner’s suspension authority under § 505 (e), whereby an NDA once effective could cease to be effective. Indeed, § 505 (e) leads to the conclusion that an NDA remains effective unless it is suspended. That section empowers FDA to withdraw approval of an NDA whenever new evidence comes to light suggesting that the drug has become unsafe, whether or not the drug was generally recognized as safe in the interim. Moreover, Hynson’s argument, as the Court of Appeals recognized, would render clause (C) superfluous. Under Hynson’s reasoning, any drug that could satisfy clause (B) — i. e., any drug that had become generally recognized as safe — automatically would satisfy clause (C). This construction, therefore, offends the well-settled rule of statutory construction that all parts of a statute, if at all possible, are to be given effect. See, e. g., Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U. S. 303, 307; Ginsberg & Sons v. Popkin, 285 U. S. 204, 208. The interpretation accorded by the Commissioner and the Court of Appeals, on the other hand, does give clause (C) operative effect. It would limit the exemption to drugs, generally recognized as safe, which had not come under the blanket of an effective NDA. This interpretation accords with the legislative history which suggests that the exemption is afforded only for drugs that never had been subject to new drug regulation. Except for the modification with respect to Lutrexin’s “new drug” status, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed. Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the decision of these cases. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT Title 21 CFR § 130.12 (a)(5) provides: (ii) The following principles have been developed over a period of years and are recognized by the scientific community as the essentials of adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations. They provide the basis for the determination whether there is “substantial evidence” to support the claims of effectiveness for “new drugs” and antibiotic drugs. (a) The plan or protocol for the study and the report of the results of the effectiveness study must include the following: (1) A clear statement of the objectives of the study, (2) A method of selection of the subjects that— (i) Provides adequate assurance that they are suitable for the purposes of the study, diagnostic criteria of the condition to be treated or diagnosed, confirmatory laboratory tests where appropriate, and, in the case of prophylactic agents, evidence of susceptibility and exposure to the condition against which prophylaxis is desired. (ii) Assigns the subjects to test groups in such a way as to minimize bias. (Hi) Assures comparability in test and control groups of pertinent variables, such as age, sex, severity, or duration of disease, and use of drugs other than the test drug. (3) Explains the methods of observation and recording of results, including the variables measured, quantitation, assessment of any subject’s response, and steps taken to minimize bias on the part of the subject and observer. (4) Provides a comparison of the results of treatment or diagnosis with a control in such a fashion as to permit quantitative evaluation. The precise nature of the control must Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent Benjamin Quarles was charged in the New York trial court with criminal possession of a weapon. The trial court suppressed the gun in question, and a statement made by respondent, because the statement was obtained by police before they read respondent his “Miranda rights.” That ruling was affirmed on appeal through the New York Court of Appeals. We granted certiorari, 461 U. S. 942 (1983), and we now reverse. We conclude that under the circumstances involved in this case, overriding considerations of public safety justify the officer’s failure to provide Miranda warnings before he asked questions devoted to locating the abandoned weapon. On September 11, 1980, at approximately 12:30 a. m., Officer Frank Kraft and Officer Sal Scarring were on road patrol in Queens, N. Y., when a young woman approached their car. She told them that she had just been raped by a black male, approximately six feet tall, who was wearing a black jacket with the name “Big Ben” printed in yellow letters on the back. She told the officers that the man had just entered an A & P supermarket located nearby and that the man was carrying a gun. The officers drove the woman to the supermarket, and Officer Kraft entered the store while Officer Scarring radioed for assistance. Officer Kraft quickly spotted respondent, who matched the description given by the woman, approaching a checkout counter. Apparently upon seeing the officer, respondent turned and ran toward the rear of the store, and Officer Kraft pursued him with a drawn gun. When respondent turned the corner at the end of an aisle, Officer Kraft lost sight of him for several seconds, and upon regaining sight of respondent, ordered him to stop and put his hands over his head. Although more than three other officers had arrived on the scene by that time, Officer Kraft was the first to reach respondent. He frisked him and discovered that he was wearing a shoulder holster which was then empty. After handcuffing him, Officer Kraft asked him where the gun was. Respondent nodded in the direction of some empty cartons and responded, “the gun is over there.” Officer Kraft thereafter retrieved a loaded .38-caliber revolver from one of the cartons, formally placed respondent under arrest, and read him his Miranda rights from a printed card. Respondent indicated that he would be willing to answer questions without an attorney present. Officer Kraft then asked respondent if he owned the gun and where he had purchased it. Respondent answered that he did own it and that he had purchased it in Miami, Fla. In the subsequent prosecution of respondent for criminal possession of a weapon, the judge excluded the statement, “the gun is over there,” and the gun because the officer had not given respondent the warnings required by our decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), before asking him where the gun was located. The judge excluded the other statements about respondent’s ownership of the gun and the place of purchase, as evidence tainted by the prior Miranda violation. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed without opinion. 85 App. Div. 2d 936, 447 N. Y. S. 2d 84 (1981). The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed by a 4-3 vote. 58 N. Y. 2d 664, 444 N. E. 2d 984 (1982). It concluded that respondent was in “custody” within the meaning of Miranda during all questioning and rejected the State’s argument that the exigencies of the situation justified Officer Kraft’s failure to read respondent his Miranda rights until after he had located the gun. The court declined to recognize an exigency exception to the usual requirements of Miranda because it found no indication from Officer Kraft’s testimony at the suppression hearing that his subjective motivation in asking the question was to protect his own safety or the safety of the public. 58 N. Y. 2d, at 666, 444 N. E. 2d, at 985. For the reasons which follow, we believe that this case presents a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” In Miranda this Court for the first time extended the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to individuals subjected to custodial interrogation by the police. 384 U. S., at 460-461, 467. The Fifth Amendment itself does not prohibit all incriminating admissions; “[ajbsent some officially coerced self-accusation, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not violated by even the most damning admissions.” United States v. Washington, 431 U. S. 181, 187 (1977) (emphasis added). The Miranda Court, however, presumed that interrogation in certain custodial circumstances is inherently coercive and held that statements made under those circumstances are inadmissible unless the suspect is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights. The prophylactic Miranda warnings therefore are “not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but [are] instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination [is] protected.” Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 444 (1974); see Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, 492 (1981) (Powell, J., concurring). Requiring Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation provides “practical reinforcement” for the Fifth Amendment right. Michigan v. Tucker, supra, at 444. In this case we have before us no claim that respondent’s statements were actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist. See Beckwith v. United States, 425 U. S. 341, 347-348 (1976); Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U. S. 737 (1966). Thus the only issue before us is whether Officer Kraft was justified in failing to make available to respondent the procedural safeguards associated with the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination since Miranda. The New York Court of Appeals was undoubtedly correct in deciding that the facts of this case come within the ambit of the Miranda decision as we have subsequently interpreted it. We agree that respondent was in police custody because we have noted 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,” California v. Beheler, 463 U. S. 1121, 1125 (1983) (per curiam), quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U. S. 492, 495 (1977) (per curiam). Here Quarles was surrounded by at least four police officers and was handcuffed when the questioning at issue took place. As the New York Court of Appeals observed, there was nothing to suggest that any of the officers were any longer concerned for their own physical safety. 58 N. Y. 2d, at 666, 444 N. E. 2d, at 985. The New York Court of Appeals’ majority declined to express an opinion as to whether there might be an exception to the Miranda rule if the police had been acting to protect the public, because the lower courts in New York had made no factual determination that the police had acted with that motive. Ibid. We hold that on these facts there is a “public safety” exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s answers may be admitted into evidence, and that the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. In a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception which we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the arresting officer. Undoubtedly most police officers, if placed in Officer Kraft’s position, would act out of a host of different, instinctive, and largely unverifiable motives — their own safety, the safety of others, and perhaps as well the desire to obtain incriminating evidence from the suspect. Whatever the motivation of individual officers in such a situation, we do not believe that the doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. The Miranda decision was based in large part on this Court’s view that the warnings which it required police to give to suspects in custody would reduce the likelihood that the suspects would fall victim to constitutionally impermissible practices of police interrogation in the presumptively coercive environment of the station house. 384 U. S., at 455-458. The dissenters warned that the requirement of Miranda warnings would have the effect of decreasing the number of suspects who respond to police questioning. Id., at 504, 516-517 (Harlan, J., joined by Stewart and White, JJ., dissenting). The Miranda majority, however, apparently felt that whatever the cost to society in terms of fewer convictions of guilty suspects, that cost would simply have to be borne in the interest of enlarged protection for the Fifth Amendment privilege. The police in this case, in the very act of apprehending a suspect, were confronted with the immediate necessity of ascertaining the whereabouts of a gun which they had every reason to believe the suspect had just removed from his empty holster and discarded in the supermarket. So long as the gun was concealed somewhere in the supermarket, with its actual whereabouts unknown, it obviously posed more than one danger to the public safety: an accomplice might make use of it, a customer or employee might later come upon it. In such a situation, if the police are required to recite the familiar Miranda warnings before asking the whereabouts of the gun, suspects in Quarles’ position might well be deterred from responding. Procedural safeguards which deter a suspect from responding were deemed acceptable in Miranda in order to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege; when the primary social cost of those added protections is the possibility of fewer convictions, the Miranda majority was willing to bear that cost. Here, had Miranda warnings deterred Quarles from responding to Officer Kraft’s question about the whereabouts of the gun, the cost would have been something more than merely the failure to obtain evidence useful in convicting Quarles. Officer Kraft needed an answer to his question not simply to make his case against Quarles but to insure that further danger to the public did not result from the concealment of the gun in a public area. We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. We decline to place officers such as Officer Kraft in the untenable position of having to consider, often in a matter of seconds, whether it best serves society for them to ask the necessary questions without the Miranda warnings and render whatever probative evidence they uncover inadmissible, or for them to give the warnings in order to preserve the admissibilty of evidence they might uncover but possibly damage or destroy their ability to obtain that evidence and neutralize the volatile situation confronting them. ■ In recognizing a narrow exception to the Miranda rule in this case, we acknowledge that to some degree we lessen the desirable clarity of that rule. At least in part in order to preserve its clarity, we have over the years refused to sanction attempts to expand our Miranda holding. See, e. g., Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420 (1984) (refusal to extend Miranda requirements to interviews with probation officers); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U. S. 707 (1979) (refusal to equate request to see a probation officer with request to see a lawyer for Miranda purposes); Beckwith v. United States, 425 U. S. 341 (1976) (refusal to extend Miranda requirements to questioning in noncustodial circumstances). As we have in other contexts, we recognize here the importance of a workable rule “to guide police officers, who have only limited time and expertise to reflect on and balance the social and individual interests involved in the specific circumstances they confront.” Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 213-214 (1979). But as we have pointed out, we believe that the exception which we recognize today lessens the necessity of that on-the-scene balancing process. The exception will not be difficult for police officers to apply because in each case it will be circumscribed by the exigency which justifies it. We think police officers can and will distinguish almost instinctively between questions necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and questions designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect. The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that distinction and an officer’s ability to recognize it. Officer Kraft asked only the question necessary to locate the missing gun before advising respondent of his rights. It was only after securing the loaded revolver and giving the warnings that he continued with investigatory questions about the ownership and place of purchase of the gun. The exception which we recognize today, far from complicating the thought processes and the on-the-scene judgments of police officers, will simply free them to follow their legitimate instincts when confronting situations presenting a danger to the public safety. We hold that the Court of Appeals in this case erred in excluding the statement, “the gun is over there,” and the gun because of the officer’s failure to read respondent his Miranda rights before attempting to locate the weapon. Accordingly we hold that it also erred in excluding the subsequent statements as illegal fruits of a Miranda violation. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Although respondent has yet to be tried in state court, the suppression ruling challenged herein is a “final judgment” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257(3), and we have jurisdiction over this case. In Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 477 (1975), we identified four categories of cases where the Court will treat a decision of the highest state court as final for § 1257 purposes even though further proceedings are anticipated in the lower state courts. This ease, which comes to this Court in the same posture as Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U. S. 287 (1984), decided earlier this Term, falls within the category which includes “those situations where the federal claim has been finally decided . . . but in which later review of the federal issue cannot be had, whatever the ultimate outcome of the case.” 420 U. S., at 481. In this case should the State convict respondent at trial, its claim that certain evidence was wrongfully suppressed will be moot. Should respondent be acquitted at trial, the State will be precluded from pressing its federal claim again on appeal. See California v. Stewart, 384 U. S. 436, 498, n. 71 (1966) (decided with Miranda v. Arizona). The State originally charged respondent with rape, but the record provides no information as to why the State failed to pursue that charge. We have long recognized an exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement in the Fourth Amendment context. See, e. g., Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 509 (1978); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 298-300 (1967); Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14-15 (1948). We have found the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment inapplicable in cases where the “ ‘exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 394 (1978), quoting McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 456 (1948). Although “the Fifth Amendment’s strictures, unlike the Fourth’s, are not removed by showing reasonableness,” Fisher v. United States, 425 U. S. 391, 400 (1976), we conclude today that there are limited circumstances where the judicially imposed strictures of Miranda are inapplicable. Miranda on its facts applies to station house questioning, but we have not so limited it in our subsequent cases, often over strong dissent. See, e. g., Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291 (1980) (police car); Orozco v. Texas, 394 U. S. 324 (1969) (defendant’s bedroom); Mathis v. United States, 391 U. S. 1 (1968) (prison cell during defendant’s sentence for an unrelated offense); but see Orozco v. Texas, supra, at 328-331 (White, J., dissenting). The dissent curiously takes us to task for “endors[ing] the introduction of coerced self-incriminating statements in criminal prosecutions,” post, at 674, and for “sanction[ing] sub silentio criminal prosecutions based on compelled self-incriminating statements.” Post, at 686. Of course our decision today does nothing of the kind. As the Miranda Court itself recognized, the failure to provide Miranda warnings in and of itself does not render a confession involuntary, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 457, and respondent is certainly free on remand to argue that his statement was coerced under traditional due process standards. Today we merely reject the only argument that respondent has raised to support the exclusion of his statement, that the statement must be presumed compelled because of Officer Kraft’s failure to read him his Miranda warnings. Similar approaches have been rejected in other contexts. See Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, at 301 (officer’s subjective intent to incriminate not determinative of whether “interrogation” occurred); United States v. Men-denhall, 446 U. S. 544, 554, and n. 6 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.) (officer’s subjective intent to detain not determinative of whether a “seizure” occurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment); United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 236, and n. 7 (1973) (officer’s subjective fear not determinative of necessity for “search incident to arrest” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement). The dissent argues that a public safety exception to Miranda is unnecessary because in every case an officer can simply ask the necessary questions to protect himself or the public, and then the prosecution can decline to introduce any incriminating responses at a subsequent trial. Post, at 686. But absent actual coercion by the officer, there is no constitutional imperative requiring the exclusion of the evidence that results from police inquiry of this kind; and we do not believe that the doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda require us to exclude the evidence, thus penalizing officers for asking the very questions which are the most crucial to their efforts to protect themselves and the public. Although it involves police questions in part relating to the whereabouts of a gun, Orozco v. Texas, 394 U. S. 324 (1969), is in no sense inconsistent with our disposition of this ease. In Orozco four hours after a murder had been committed at a restaurant, four police officers entered the defendant’s boardinghouse and awakened the defendant, who was sleeping in his bedroom. Without giving him Miranda warnings, they began vigorously to interrogate him about whether he had been present at the scene of the shooting and whether he owned a gun. The defendant eventually admitted that he had been present at the scene and directed the officers to a washing machine in the backroom of the boardinghouse where he had hidden the gun. We held that all the statements should have been suppressed. In Orozco, however, the questions about the gun were clearly investigatory; they did not in any way relate to an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger associated with the weapon. In short there was no exigency requiring immediate action by the officers beyond the normal need expeditiously to solve a serious crime. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291 (1980), also involved the whereabouts of a missing weapon, but our holding in that case depended entirely on our conclusion that no police interrogation took place so as to require consideration of the applicability of the Miranda prophylactic. Because we hold that there is no violation of Miranda in this case, we have no occasion to reach arguments made by the State and the United States as amicus curiae that the gun is admissible either because it is nontestimonial or because the police would inevitably have discovered it absent their questioning. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. The petitioners were tried without a jury in the District Court for the Northern District of California under a two-count indictment for violation of the Federal Narcotics Laws, 21 U. S. C. § 174. They were acquitted under the first count which charged a conspiracy, but convicted under the second count which charged the substantive offense of fraudulent and knowing transportation and concealment of illegally imported heroin. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, one judge dissenting, affirmed the convictions. 288 F. 2d 366. We" granted certiorari. 368 U. S. 817. We heard argument in the 1961 Term and reargument this Term. 370 U. S. 908. About 2 a. m. on the morning of June 4, 1959, federal narcotics agents in San Francisco, after having had one Horn Way under surveillance for six weeks, arrested him and found heroin in his possession. Horn Way, who had not before been an informant, stated after his arrest that he had bought an ounce of heroin the night before from one known to him only as “Blackie Toy,” proprietor of a laundry on Leavenworth Street. About 6 a. m. that morning six or seven federal agents went to a laundry at 1733 Leavenworth Street. The sign above the door of this establishment said “Oye’s Laundry.” It was operated by the petitioner James Wah Toy. There is, however, nothing in the record which identifies James Wah Toy and “Blackie Toy” as the same person. The other federal officers remained nearby out of sight while Agent Alton Wong, who was of Chinese ancestry, rang the bell. When petitioner Toy appeared and opened the door, Agent Wong told him that he was calling for laundry and dry cleaning. Toy replied that he didn’t open until 8 o’clock and told the agent to come back at that time. Toy started to close the door. Agent Wong thereupon took his badge from his pocket and said, “I am a federal narcotics agent.” Toy immediately “slammed the door and started running” down the hallway through the laundry to his living quarters at the back where his wife and child were sleeping in a bedroom. Agent Wong and the other federal officers broke open the door and followed Toy down the hallway to the living quarters and into the bedroom. Toy reached into a nightstand drawer. Agent Wong thereupon drew his pistol, pulled Toy’s hand out of the drawer, placed him under arrest and handcuffed him. There was nothing in the drawer and a search of the premises uncovered no narcotics. One of the agents said to Toy “... [Horn Way] says he got narcotics from you.” Toy responded, “No, I haven’t been selling any narcotics at all. However, I do know somebody who has.” When asked who that was, Toy said, “I only know him as Johnny. I don’t know his last name.” However, Toy described a house on Eleventh Avenue where he said Johnny lived; he also described a bedroom in the house where he said “Johnny kept about a piece” of heroin, and where he and Johnny had smoked some of the drug the night before. The agents left immediately for Eleventh Avenue and located the house. They entered and found one Johnny Yee in the bedroom. After a discussion with the agents, Yee took from a bureau drawer several tubes containing in all just less than one ounce of heroin, and surrendered them. Within the hour Yee and Toy were taken to the Office of the Bureau of Narcotics. Yee there stated that the heroin had been brought to him some four days earlier by petitioner Toy and another Chinese known to him only as “Sea Dog.” Toy was questioned as to the identity of “Sea Dog” and said that “Sea Dog” was Wong Sun. Some agents, including Agent Alton Wong, took Toy to Wong Sun’s neighborhood where Toy pointed out a multifamily dwelling where he said Wong Sun lived. Agent Wong rang a downstairs door bell and a buzzer sounded, opening the door. The officer identified himself as a narcotics agent to a woman on the landing and asked “for Mr. Wong.” The woman was the wife of petitioner Wong Sun. She said that Wong Sun was “in the back room sleeping.” Alton Wong and some six other officers climbed the stairs and entered the apartment. One of the officers went into the back room and brought petitioner Wong Sun from the bedroom in handcuffs. A thorough search of the apartment followed, but no narcotics were discovered. Petitioner Toy and Johnny Yee were arraigned before a United States Commissioner on June 4 on a complaint charging a violation of 21 U. S. C. § 174. Later that day, each was released on his own recognizance. Petitioner Wong Sun was arraigned on a similar complaint filed the next day and was also released on his own recognizance. Within a few days, both petitioners and Yee were interrogated at the office of the Narcotics Bureau by Agent William Wong, also of Chinese ancestry. The agent advised each of the three of his right to withhold information which might be used against him, and stated to each that he was entitled to the advice of counsel, though it does not appear that any attorney was present during the questioning of any of the three. The officer also explained to each that no promises or offers of immunity or leniency were being or could be made. The agent interrogated each of the three separately. After each had been interrogated the agent prepared a statement in English from rough notes. The agent read petitioner Toy’s statement to him in English and interpreted certain portions of it for him in Chinese. Toy also read the statement in English aloud to the agent, said there were corrections to be made, and made the corrections in his own hand. Toy would not sign the statement, however; in the agent’s words “he wanted to know first if the other persons involved in the case had signed theirs.” Wong Sun had considerable difficulty understanding the statement in English and the agent restated its substance in Chinese. Wong Sun refused to sign the statement although he admitted the accuracy of its contents. Horn Way did not testify at petitioners’ trial. The Government offered Johnny Yee as its principal witness but excused him after he invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and flatly repudiated the statement he had given to Agent William Wong. That statement was not offered in evidence nor was any testimony elicited from him identifying either petitioner as the source of the heroin in his possession, or otherwise tending to support the charges against the petitioners. The statute expressly provides that proof of the accused’s possession of the drug will support a conviction under the statute unless the accused satisfactorily explains the possession. The Government’s evidence tending to prove the petitioners’ possession (the petitioners offered no exculpatory testimony) consisted of four items which the trial court admitted over timely objections that they were inadmissible as “fruits” of unlawful arrests or of attendant searches: (1) the statements made orally by petitioner Toy in his bedroom at the time of his arrest; (2) the heroin surrendered to the agents by Johnny Yee; (3) petitioner Toy’s pretrial unsigned statement; and (4) petitioner Wong Sun’s similar statement. The dispute below and here has centered around the correctness of the rulings of the trial judge allowing these items in evidence. The Court of Appeals held that the arrests of both petitioners were illegal because not based on “ 'probable cause’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment” nor “reasonable grounds” within the meaning of the Narcotic Control Act of 1956. The court said as to Toy’s arrest, “There is no showing in this case that the agent knew Horn Way to be reliable,” and, furthermore, found “nothing in the circumstances occurring at Toy’s premises that would provide sufficient justification for his arrest without a warrant.” 288 F. 2d, at 369, 370. As to Wong Sun’s arrest, the Court said “there is no showing that Johnnie Yee was a reliable informer.” The Court of Appeals nevertheless held that the four items of proof were not the “fruits” of the illegal arrests and that they were therefore properly admitted in evidence. The Court of Appeals rejected two additional contentions of the petitioners. The first was that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the petitioners’ unsigned admissions of possession of narcotics. The court held that the narcotics in evidence surrendered by Johnny Yee, together with Toy’s statements in his bedroom at the time of arrest corroborated petitioners’ admissions. The second contention was that the confessions were inadmissible because they were not signed. The Court of Appeals held on this point that the petitioners were not prejudiced, since the agent might properly have testified to the substance of the conversations which produced the statements. We believe that significant differences between the cases of the two petitioners require separate discussion of each. We shall first consider the case of petitioner Toy. I. The Court of Appeals found there was neither reasonable grounds nor probable cause for Toy’s arrest. Giving due weight to that finding, we think it is amply justified by the facts clearly shown on this record. It is basic that an arrest with or without a warrant must stand upon firmer ground than mere suspicion, see Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 101, though the arresting officer need not have in hand evidence which would suffice to convict. The quantum of information which constitutes probable cause — evidence which would “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief” that a felony has been committed, Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 162 — -must be measured by the facts of the particular case. The history of the use, and not infrequent abuse, of the power to arrest cautions that a relaxation of the fundamental requirements of probable cause would “leave law-abiding Citizens at the mercy of the officers’ whim or caprice.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176. Whether or not the requirements of reliability and particularity of the information on which an officer may act are more stringent where an arrest warrant is absent, they surely cannot be less stringent than where an arrest warrant is obtained. Otherwise, a principal incentive now existing for the procurement of arrest warrants would be destroyed. The threshold question in this case, therefore, is whether the officers could, on the information which impelled them to act, have procured a warrant for the arrest of Toy. We think that no warrant would have issued on evidence then available. The narcotics agents had no basis in experience for confidence in the reliability of Horn Way’s information; he had never before given information. And yet they acted upon his imprecise suggestion that a person described only as “Blackie Toy,” the proprietor of a laundry somewhere on Leavenworth Street, had sold one ounce of heroin. We have held that identification of the suspect by a reliable informant may constitute probable cause for arrest where the information given is sufficiently accurate to lead the officers directly to the suspect. Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307. That rule does not, however, fit this case. For aught that the record discloses, Horn Way’s accusation merely invited the officers to roam the length of Leavenworth Street (some 30 blocks) in search of one “Blackie Toy’s” laundry — and whether by chance or other means (the record does not say) they came upon petitioner Toy’s laundry, which bore not his name over the door, but the unrevealing label “Oye’s.” Not the slightest intimation appears on the record, or was made on oral argument, to suggest that the agents had information giving them reason to equate “Blackie” Toy and James Wah Toy — e. g., that they had the criminal record of a Toy, or that they had consulted some other kind of official record or list, or had some information of some kind which had narrowed the scope of their search to this particular Toy. It is conceded that the officers made no attempt to obtain a warrant for Toy’s arrest. The simple fact is that on the sparse information at the officers’ command, no arrest warrant could have issued consistently with Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480, 486. The arrest warrant procedure serves to insure that the deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer will be interposed between the citizen and the police, to assess the weight and credibility of the information which the complaining officer adduces as probable cause. Cf. Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 270. To hold that an officer may act in his own, unchecked discretion upon information too vague and from too untested a source to permit a judicial officer to accept it as probable cause for an arrest warrant, would subvert this fundamental policy. The Government contends, however, that any defects in the information which somehow took the officers to petitioner Toy’s laundry were remedied by events which occurred after they arrived. Specifically, it is urged that Toy’s flight down the hall when the supposed customer at the door revealed that he was a narcotics agent adequately corroborates the suspicion generated by Horn Way’s accusation. Our holding in Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301, is relevant here, and exposes the fallacy of this contention. We noted in that case that the lawfulness of an officer’s entry to arrest without a warrant “must be tested by criteria identical with those embodied in 18 U. S. C. § 3109, which deals with entry to execute a search warrant.” 357 U. S., at 306. That statute requires that an officer must state his authority and his purpose at the threshold, and be refused admittance, before he may break open the door. We held that when an officer insufficiently or unclearly identifies his office or his mission, the occupant’s flight from the door must be regarded as ambiguous conduct. We expressly reserved the question “whether the unqualified requirements of the rule admit of an exception justifying noncompliance in exigent circumstances.” 357 U. S., at 309. In the instant case, Toy’s flight from the door afforded no surer an inference of guilty knowledge than did the suspect’s conduct in the Miller case. Agent Wong did eventually disclose that he was a narcotics officer. However, he affirmatively misrepresented his mission at the outset, by stating that he had come for laundry and dry cleaning. And before Toy fled, the officer never adequately dispelled the misimpression engendered by his own ruse. Cf. Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298; Gatewood v. United States, 209 F. 2d 789. Moreover, he made no effort at that time, nor indeed at any time thereafter, to ascertain whether the man at the door was the “Blackie Toy” named by Horn Way. Therefore, this is not the case we hypothesized in Miller where “without an express announcement of purpose, the facts known to officers would justify them in being virtually certain” that the person at the door knows their purpose. 357 U. S., at 310. Toy’s refusal to admit the officers and his flight down the hallway thus signified a guilty knowledge no more clearly than it did a natural desire to repel an apparently unauthorized intrusion. Here, as in Miller, the Government claims no extraordinary circumstances— such as the imminent destruction of vital evidence, or the need to rescue a victim in peril — see 357 U. S., at 309— which excused the officer’s failure truthfully to state his mission before he broke in. A contrary holding here would mean that a vague suspicion could be transformed into probable cause for arrest by reason of ambiguous conduct which the arresting officers themselves have provoked. Cf. Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 104. That result would have the same essential vice as a'proposition we have consistently rejected- — -that a search unlawful at its inception may be validated by what it turns up. Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28; United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 595. Thus we conclude that the Court of Appeals’ finding that the officers’ uninvited entry into Toy’s living quarters was unlawful and that the bedroom arrest which followed was likewise unlawful, was fully justified on the evidence. It remains to be seen what consequences flow from this conclusion. II. It is conceded that Toy’s declarations in his bedroom are to be excluded if they are held to be “fruits” of the agents’ unlawful action. In order to make effective the fundamental constitutional guarantees of sanctity of the home and inviolability of the person, Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, this Court held nearly half a century ago that evidence seized during an unlawful search could not constitute proof against the victim of the search. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383. The exclusionary prohibition extends as well to the indirect as the direct products of such invasions. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385. Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court in that case, in holding that the Government might not make use of information obtained during an unlawful search to subpoena from the victims the very documents illegally viewed, expressed succinctly the policy of the broad exclusionary rule: “The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all. Of course this does not mean that the facts thus obtained become sacred and inaccessible. If knowledge of them is gained from an independent source they may be proved like any others, but the knowledge gained by the Government’s own wrong cannot be used by it in the way proposed.” 251 U. S., at 392. The exclusionary rule has traditionally barred from trial physical, tangible materials obtained either during or as a direct result of an unlawful invasion. It follows from our holding in Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, that the Fourth Amendment may protect against the overhearing of verbal statements as well as against the more traditional seizure of “papers and effects.” Similarly, testimony as to matters observed during an unlawful invasion has been excluded in order to enforce the basic constitutional policies. McGinnis v. United States, 227 F. 2d 598. Thus, verbal evidence which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and an unauthorized arrest as the officers’ action in the present case is no less the “fruit” of official illegality than the more common tangible fruits of the unwarranted intrusion. See Nueslein v. District of Columbia, 115 F. 2d 690. Nor do the policies underlying the exclusionary rule invite any logical distinction between physical and verbal evidence. Either in terms of deterring lawless conduct by federal officers, Rea v. United States, 350 U. S. 214, or of closing the doors of the federal courts to any use of evidence unconstitutionally obtained, Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, the danger in relaxing the exclusionary rules in the case of verbal evidence would seem too great to warrant introducing such a distinction. The Government argues that Toy’s statements to the officers in his bedroom, although closely consequent upon the invasion which we hold unlawful, were nevertheless admissible because they resulted from “an intervening independent act of a free will.” This contention, however, takes insufficient account of the circumstances. Six or seven officers had broken the door and followed on Toy’s heels into the bedroom where his wife and child wTere sleeping. He had been almost immediately handcuffed and arrested. Under such circumstances it is unreasonable to infer that Toy’s response was sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion. The Government also contends that Toy’s declarations should be admissible because they were ostensibly exculpatory rather than incriminating. There are two answers to this argument. First, the statements soon turned out to be incriminating, for they led directly to the evidence which implicated Toy. Second, when circumstances are shown such as those which induced these declarations, it is immaterial whether the declarations be termed “exculpatory.” Thus we find no substantial reason to omit Toy’s declarations from the protection of the exclusionary rule. III. We now consider whether the exclusion of Toy’s declarations requires also the exclusion of the narcotics taken from Yee, to which those declarations led the police. The prosecutor candidly told the trial court that “we wouldn’t have found those drugs except that Mr. Toy helped us to.”'Hence this is not the case envisioned by this Court where the exclusionary rule has no application because the Government learned of the evidence “from an independent source,” Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 392; nor is this a case in which the connection between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the challenged evidence has “become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.” Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341. We need not hold that all evidence is “fruit of the poisonous tree” simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is “whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.” Maguire, Evidence of Guilt, 221 (1959). We think it clear that the narcotics were “come at by the exploitation of that illegality” and hence that they may not be used against Toy. IV. It remains only to consider Toy’s unsigned statement. We need not decide whether, in light of the fact that Toy was free on his own recognizance when he made the statement, that statement was a fruit of the illegal arrest. Cf. United States v. Bayer, 331 U. S. 532. Since we have concluded that his declarations in the bedroom and the narcotics surrendered by Yee should not have been admitted in evidence against him, the only proofs remaining to sustain his conviction are his and Wong Sun’s unsigned statements. Without scrutinizing the contents of Toy’s ambiguous recitals, we conclude that no reference to Toy in Wong Sun’s statement constitutes admissible evidence corroborating any admission by Toy. We arrive at this conclusion upon two clear lines of decisions which converge to require it. One line of our decisions establishes that criminal confessions and admissions of guilt require extrinsic corroboration; the other line of precedents holds that an out-of-court declaration made after arrest may not be used at trial against one of the declarant’s partners in crime. It is a settled principle of the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts that a conviction must rest upon firmer ground than the uncorroborated admission or confession of the accused. We observed in Smith v. United States, 348 U. S. 147, 153, that the requirement of corroboration is rooted in “a long history of judicial experience with confessions and in the realization that sound law enforcement requires police investigations which extend beyond the words of the accused.” In Opper v. United States, 348 U. S. 84, 89-90, we elaborated the reasons for the requirement: “In our country the doubt persists that the zeal of the agencies of prosecution to protect the peace, the self-interest of the accomplice, the maliciousness of an enemy or the aberration or weakness of the accused under the strain of suspicion may tinge or warp the facts of the confession. Admissions, retold at a trial, are much like hearsay, that is, statements not made at the pending trial. They had neither the compulsion of the oath nor the test of cross-examination.” It is true that in Smith v. United States, supra, we held that although “corroboration is necessary for all elements of the offense established by admissions alone,” extrinsic proof was sufficient which “merely fortifies the truth of the confession, without independently establishing the crime charged....” 348 U. S., at 156. However, Wong Sun’s unsigned confession does not furnish competent corroborative evidence. The second governing principle, likewise well settled in our decisions, is that an out-of-court declaration made after arrest may not be used at trial against one of the declarant’s partners in crime. While such a statement is “admissible against the others where it is in furtherance of the criminal undertaking... all such responsibility is at an end when the conspiracy ends.” Fiswick v. United States, 329 U. S. 211, 217. We have consistently refused to broaden that very narrow exception to the traditional hearsay rule which admits statements of a codefendant made in furtherance of a conspiracy or joint undertaking. See Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U. S. 440, 443-445. And where postconspiracy declarations have been admitted, we have carefully ascertained that limiting instructions kept the jury from considering the contents with respect to the guilt of anyone but the declarant. Lutwak v. United States, 344 U. S. 604, 618-619; Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U. S. 232, 236-237. We have never ruled squarely on the question presented here, whether a codefendant’s statement might serve to corroborate even where it will not suffice to convict. We see no warrant for a different result so long as the rule which regulates the use of out-of-court statements is one of admissibility, rather than simply of weight, of the evidence. The import of our previous holdings is that a co-conspirator’s hearsay statements may be admitted against the accused for no purpose whatever, unless made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus as to Toy the only possible source of corroboration is removed and his conviction must be set aside for lack of competent evidence to support it. V. We turn now to the case of the other petitioner, Wong Sun. We have no occasion to disagree with the finding of the Court of Appeals that his arrest, also, was without probable cause or reasonable grounds. At all events no evidentiary consequences turn upon that question. For Wong Sun’s unsigned confession was not the fruit of that arrest, and was therefore properly admitted at trial. On the evidence that Wong Sun had been released on his own recognizance after a lawful arraignment, and had returned voluntarily several days later to make the statement, we hold that the connection between the arrest and the statement had “become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.” Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341. The fact that the statement was unsigned, whatever bearing this may have upon its weight and credibility, does not render it inadmissible; Wong Sun understood and adopted its substance, though he could not comprehend the English words. The petitioner has never suggested any impropriety in the interrogation itself which would require the exclusion of this statement. We must then consider the admissibility of the narcotics surrendered by Yee. Our holding, supra, that this ounce of heroin was inadmissible against Toy does not compel a like result with respect to Wong Sun. The exclusion of the narcotics as to Toy was required solely by their tainted relationship to information unlawfully obtained from Toy, and not by any official impropriety connected with their surrender by Yee. The seizure of this heroin invaded no right of privacy of person or premises which would'entitle Wong Sun to object to its use at his trial. Cf. Goldstein v. United States, 316 U. S. 114. However, for the reasons that Wong Sun’s statement was incompetent to corroborate Toy’s admissions contained in Toy’s own statement, any references to Wong Sun in Toy’s statement were incompetent to corroborate Wong Sun’s admissions. Thus, the only competent source of corroboration for Wong Sun’s statement was the heroin itself. We cannot be certain, however, on this state of the record, that the trial judge may not also have considered the contents of Toy’s statement as a source of corroboration. Petitioners raised as one ground of objection to the introduction of the statements the claim that each statement, “even if it were a purported admission or confession or declaration against interest of a defendant... would not be binding upon the other defendant.” The trial judge, in allowing the statements in, apparently overruled all of petitioners’ objections, including this one. Thus we presume that he considered all portions of both statements as bearing upon the guilt of both petitioners. We intimate no view one way or the other as to whether the trial judge might have found in the narcotics alone sufficient evidence to corroborate Wong Sun’s admissions that he delivered heroin to Yee and smoked heroin at Yee’s house around the date in question. But because he might, as the factfinder, have found insufficient corroboration from the narcotics alone, we cannot be sure that the scales were not tipped in favor of conviction by reliance upon the inadmissible Toy statement. This is particularly important because of the nature of the offense involved here. Surely, under the narcotics statute, the discovery of heroin raises a presumption that someone — generally the possessor — violated the law. As to him, once possession alone is proved, the other elements of the offense — transportation and concealment with knowledge of the illegal importation of the drug — need not be separately demonstrated, much less corroborated. 21 U. S. C. § 174. Thus particular care ought to be taken in this area, when the crucial element of the accused’s possession is proved solely by his own admissions, that the requisite corroboration be found among the evidence which is properly before the trier of facts. We therefore hold that petitioner Wong Sun is also entitled to a new trial. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. [For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas, see post, p. 497.] [For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Clark, see post, p. 498.] APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT. Statement of JAMES WAH TOY taken on June 5, 1959, concerning his knowledge of WONG SUN’s narcotic trafficking I have known WONG SUN for about 3 months. I know him as SEA DOG which is what everyone calls him. I first met him in Marysville, California, during a Chinese holiday. I drove him back to San Francisco on that occasion. Sometimes he asks me to drive him home and to different places in San Francisco. Sometime during April or May of this year, he asked me to drive him out to JOHNNY YEE’s house, at 11th and Balboa Streets. He asked me to call JOHNNY and tell him we were coming. When we got there we went into the house and WONG SUN took a paper package out of his pocket and put it on the table. Then both WONG SUN and JOHNNY YEE opened the package. I don’t know how much heroin was in it, but I know it was more than 10 spoons. I asked them if I could have some for myself and they said yes. I took a little bit and went across the room and smoked it in a cigarette. WONG SUN and JOHNNY YEE talked for about 10 or 15 minutes, but they were talking in low tones so that I could not hear what they were saying. I didn’t see any money "change hands, because I wasn’t paying too much attention. WONG SUN and I then left the house and drove. I drove WONG SUN to his home and he gave me $15.00. He said the money was for driving him out there. I have driven WONG SUN out to JOHNNY YEE’s house about 5 times altogether. Each time WONG SUN gave me $10 or $15 for doing it and also, Johnny gave me a little heroin — enough to put in 3 or 4 cigarettes. The last time I drove WONG SUN out to YEE’s house was last Tuesday, May 26, 1959. On Wednesday night June 3, 1959, at about 10:00 p. m., I called JOHNNY YEE and told him that “I’m coming out pretty soon — I don’t have anything.” He said okay, so I drove out there. When I got there I went in the house and Johnny gave me a paper of heroin. The bindle had about enough for 5 or 6 cigarettes. I didn’t give him any money and he didn’t ask for any. He gives it to me just out of friendship. He has given me heroin like this quite a few times. I don’t remember how many times. I have known HOM WEI about 2 or 3 years but I have never dealt in narcotics with him. I have known ED FONG about 1 year and I have never dealt in narcotics with him, either. I have heard people that I know in the Hop Sing Tong Club talk about HOM WEI dealing in narcotics but nothing about ED FONG. I do not know JOHN MOW LIM or BILL FONG. The only connection I have now is JOHNNY YEE. I have carefully read the foregoing statement, which was made of my own free will, without promise of reward or immunity and not under duress. I have been given ample opportunity to make corrections have initialed or signed each page as evidence thereof and hereby state that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. JAMES WAH TOY JAMES WAH TOY did not wish to sign this statement at this time. He stated he may change his mind at a later date. However, I read this statement to him and in addition he read it also and stated that the contents thereof were true to the best of his knowledge. Corrections made were by JAMES WAH TOY without his initials. /s/ William Wong William Wong, Narcotic Agent STATEMENT OF WONG SUN I met JAMES TOY approximately the middle of March, this year, at Marysville, California, during a Chinese celebration. We returned to San Francisco together and we discussed the possible sale of heroin. I told JAMES that I could get a piece of heroin for $450 from a person known as BILL. Shortly after returning to San Francisco, JAMES told me he wanted me to get a piece. I asked him who it was for and he told me it was for JOHNNY. He gave me $450 and I obtained a piece of heroin from BILL. I did this on approximately 8 occasions, however, at least one of these times the heroin was not for JOHNNY- — for another friend of JAMES TOY. JOHNNY would pay JAMES $600 for each piece. On several occasions after I had obtained the piece for JAMES I would drive with him to JOHNNY’s house, 606 11th Avenue, and we would go upstairs to the bedroom. There, all three of us would smoke some of the heroin and JAMES would give the piece to JOHNNY. I also went with JAMES on approximately 3 other occasions when he did not take any heroin and then we smoked at JOHNNY’s and we would also get some for our own use. About 4 days before I was arrested (arrested on June 4, 1959) JAMES called me at home about 7 o’clock in the evening and told me to come by. I went to the laundry and JAMES told me to get a piece. I called BILL and arranged to meet him. JAMES gave me $450 which I gave to BILL when I met him. BILL called me about one hour later at the laundry and I met him. He gave me one piece, which I gave to JAMES, and JAMES immediately thereafter called JOHNNY. We drove to 606 Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. Petitioner was indicted, with others, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for conspiring to make false statements to an' agency of the United States at hearings held in Philadelphia and Baltimore under proceedings for the deportation of an alien. Petitioner was also separately indicted for suborning perjury at the Philadelphia hearings. Petitioner’s co-defendants pleaded • guilty to the conspiracy charged. Petitioner went to trial on both indictments, but at the close of the Government’s case he changed his plea to nolo contendere to the conspiracy charge, and the Government dismissed the subornation indictment. He was fined $500 and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, which he served. 'Petitioner was subsequently indicted in the District of Maryland for suborning' the perjury of two witnesses at the Baltimore hearings. Among the overt acts which, had been relied upon in the Pennsylvania conspiracy indictment was the testimony of these two witnesses. ' Because of this, petitioner .moved to dismiss the Maryland indictment on the ground of double jeopardy, but his motion was denied, 147 F. Supp. 791, and the conviction which resulted was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 262 F. 2d 788. Thereupon a petition- for a writ of certiorari was filed with the double jeopardy issue as the single question presented, and certiorari was granted. 360 U. S. 908. The Government-did-not oppose the granting of this petition, but informed the Court that the case was' under consideration by the Department of Justice to determine whether the second prosecution in the District of Maryland was consistent with the sound policy of the Department in discharging its .responsibility for the control of government litigation wholly apart from the question of the legal validity of the claim of double jeopardy. In due course the Government filed this motion for an order vacating the judgment below and remanding the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland with directions to dismiss the indictment. It did so on the ground that it is the general policy of the Federal Government “that several offenses arising out of a single transaction should be alleged and tried tqgether and should not be made the basis of multiple prosecutions, a policy dictated by considerations both of fairness to defendants and of efficient and orderly law enforcement.” The Solicitor General on behalf of the Government represents this policy as closely related to that against duplicating federal-state prosecutions, which was formally defined by the Attorney General of the United States in a memorandum to the United States Attorneys. (Department of Justice Press Release, Apr. 6,1959.) Counsel for petitioner “joins in and consents” to the Government’s motion. The ca'se is remanded to the Court of Appeals to vacate its judgment and to direct the District Court to vacate. its judgment and to dismiss the indictment. In the interest of justice, the Court is clearly empowered thus to dispose of the matter, 28 U. S. C. § 2106, and we do so with due regard for the settled rule that the Court will not “anticipate a question of constitutional law in ádvance of the necessity of deciding it.” Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U. S. 33, 39. By thus disposing of the matter, we are of course not to be understood as remotely intimating in any degree an opinion on the question of double jeopardy sought to be presented by the petition for certiorari. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. In this case we must determine whether provisions of Louisiana law which give only “property taxpayers” the right to vote in elections called to approve the issuance of revenue bonds by a municipal utility are constitutional. This case thus presents an issue similar to the one considered in Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, ante, p. 621. With one judge dissenting, a three-judge District Court determined that the Louisiana provisions were constitutional. However, as in Kramer, we find that the challenged provisions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; we therefore reverse. The Louisiana Constitution provides that the legislature may authorize municipalities to issue bonds “[f]or the purpose of constructing, acquiring, extending or improving any revenue-producing public utility.” La. Const., Art. 14, § 14 (m). Pursuant to this provision, the legislature enacted legislation authorizing Louisiana municipalities to issue revenue bonds. La. Rev. Stat. §33:4251 (1950). The legislature further provided, however, that the municipalities could issue the bonds only if they were approved by a “majority in number and amount of the property taxpayers qualified to vote . . . [who vote at the bond election] La. Rev. Stat. §39:501 (1950). See also La. Rev. Stat. § § 33:4258, 39:508 (1950). Appellee City of Houma owns and operates gas, water, and electric utility systems. In September 1967 the city officials scheduled a special election to obtain voter approval for the issuance of $10,000,000 of utility revenue bonds. The city planned to finance extension and improvement of the municipally owned utility systems with the bond proceeds. At the special election a majority “in number and amount” of the property taxpayers approved the bond issue. However, within the period provided by Louisiana law for contesting the result of the election, La. Rev. Stat. § 33:4260 (1950), this suit was instituted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Appellant alleged that he was a duly qualified voter of the City of Houma, and that he had been prevented from voting in the revenue bond election solely because he was not a property owner. He sued for himself and for a class of 6,926 nonproperty taxpayers otherwise qualified as City of Houma voters. Appellant sought to enjoin the issuance of the bonds approved at the special election and to obtain a declaratory judgment that the limitation of the franchise to property taxpayers is unconstitutional. A three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284. The court then dismissed the suit, finding the Louisiana provisions constitutional. Cipriano v. City of Houma, 286 F. Supp. 823 (D. C. E. D. La. 1968). Appellant brought a direct appeal to this Court, 28 U. S. C. § 1253; we noted probable jurisdiction. 393 U. S. 1061 (1969). As we noted in Kramer, supra, if a challenged state statute grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters and denies it to others, “the Court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest.” Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, supra, at 627. Moreover, no less showing that the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest is required merely because “the questions scheduled for the election need not have been submitted to the voters.” Id., at 629, n. 11. The appellees maintain that property owners have a “special pecuniary interest” in the election, because the efficiency of the utility system directly affects “property and property values” and thus “the basic security of their investment in [their] property [is] at stake.” Assuming, arguendo, that a State might, in some circumstances, constitutionally limit the franchise to qualified voters who are also “specially interested” in the election, whether the statute allegedly so limiting the franchise denies equal protection of the laws to those otherwise qualified voters who are excluded depends on “whether all those excluded are in fact substantially less interested or affected than those the statute includes.” Id., at 632. At the time of the election, only about 40% of the city’s registered voters were property taxpayers. Of course, the operation of the utility systems — gas, water, and electric — affects virtually every resident of the city, nonproperty owners as well as property owners. All users pay utility bills, and the rates may be affected substantially by the amount of revenue bonds outstanding. Certainly property owners are not alone in feeling the impact of bad utility service or high rates, or in reaping the benefits of good service and low rates. The revenue bonds are to be paid only from the operations of the utilities; they are not financed in any way by property tax revenue. Property owners, like non-property owners, use the utilities and pay the rates; however, the impact of the revenue bond issue on them is unconnected to their status as property taxpayers. Indeed, the benefits and burdens of the bond issue fall indiscriminately on property owner and nonproperty owner alike. Moreover, the profits of the utility systems’ operations are paid into the general fund of the city and are used to finance city services that otherwise would be supported by taxes. Of course, property taxpayers may be concerned with expanding and improving the city’s utility operations; such improvements could produce revenues which eventually would reduce the burden on the property tax to support city services. On the other hand, nonproperty taxpayers may feel that their interests as rate payers indicate that no further expansion of utility debt obligations should be made. Of course, these differences of opinion cannot justify excluding either group from the bond election, when, as in this case, both are substantially affected by the utility operations. For, as we noted in Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 94 (1965), “'[fjencing out’ from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible.” The challenged statute contains a classification which excludes otherwise qualified voters who are as substantially affected and directly interested in the matter voted upon as are those who are permitted to vote. When, as in this case, the State’s sole justification for the statute is that the classification provides a “rational basis” for limiting the franchise to those voters with a “special interest,” the statute clearly does not meet the “exacting standard of precision we require of statutes which selectively distribute the franchise.” Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, supra, at 632. We therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court. Significant hardships would be imposed on cities, bondholders, and others connected with municipal utilities if our decision today were given full retroactive effect. Where a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the “injustice or hardship” by a holding of nonretroactivity. Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U. S. 358, 364 (1932). See Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U. S. 371 (1940). Cf. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965). Therefore, we will apply our decision in this case prospectively. That is, we will apply it only where, under state law, the time for challenging the election result has not expired, or in cases brought within the time specified by state law for challenging the election and which are not yet final. Thus, the decision will not apply where the authorization to issue the securities is legally complete on the date of this decision. Of course, our decision will not affect the validity of securities which have been sold or issued prior to this decision and pursuant to such final authorization. The judgment of the District Court is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Stewart concur in the judgment of the Court. Unlike Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, ante, p. 621, this case involves a voting classification “wholly irrelevant to achievement” of the State’s objective. Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm’rs, 330 U. S. 552, 556. Mr. Justice Harlan, while adhering to his views expressed in dissent in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589 (1964); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 680 (1966); and Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474, 486 (1968), but considering himself bound by the Court’s decisions in those cases, concurs in the result. The amount of debt a municipality may incur is limited by the Louisiana Constitution. La. Const., Art. 14, § 14 (f), These revenue bonds are not included in computing the municipal debt, however, if they are secured exclusively by a mortgage on the assets of the utility system and a pledge of the system revenues. La. Const., Art. 14, § 14 (m). We were informed at oral argument that “number and amount” means the bonds must be approved by a majority of the property taxpayers voting and their votes must also represent a “majority of the assessed property owned by those taxpayers who are actually voting.” The qualifications are of age, residence, and registration. See La. Rev. Stat. §39:508 (1950). Appellant does not challenge any other voter qualification regulations. The sole issue in this case is the constitutionality of the provisions of Louisiana law permitting only property taxpayers to vote in utility bond elections. As in Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, supra, we find it unnecessary to decide whether a State might, in some circumstances, limit the franchise to those “primarily interested.” For example, a proposed decrease in utility rates may be forestalled by the issuance of new revenue bonds. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. This private treble-damage antitrust action was brought by the New Jersey Wood Finishing Company against Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and the Essex Wire Corporation. Respondent’s original complaint was filed on November 20,1961. It alleged violations of § 7 of the Clayton Act, a conspiracy to restrain commerce in electrical insulation products in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act and an attempt to monopolize the same as prohibited by § 2. The substance of the complaint concerned the acquisition in 1956 of all the assets of Insulation and Wires, Inc., a subsidiary of Essex, by Minnesota Mining and an alleged conspiracy to restrain trade in electrical insulation products. The latter claimed that the suit was barred by the four-year limitation provision of the Clayton Act. However, New Jersey Wood asserted that the bar of the statute had been tolled by a proceeding filed in 1960 against Minnesota Mining by the Federal Trade Commission under § 7 of the Clayton Act. That action resulted in a consent order under which Minnesota Mining was directed to divest itself of the assets acquired. Section 5 (b) of the Clayton Act provides that a “civil or criminal proceeding . . . instituted by the United States to prevent, restrain, or punish violations of any of the antitrust laws” suspends the running of the statute of limitations during the pendency thereof and for one year thereafter with respect to private actions arising under those laws and based on any matter complained of in the government suit. The questions here are whether proceedings by the Federal Trade Commission toll the running of the § 4B statute of limitations to the same extent as do judicial proceedings and, if they do, whether the claim of New Jersey Wood is based on “any matter complained of” in the Commission action. The District Court denied Minnesota Mining’s motion to dismiss, holding that the four-year statute had been tolled by § 5 (b) and that this suit was timely filed. 216 F. Supp. 507. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 332 F. 2d 346. We granted certiorari because of a conflict between circuits and the importance of the question in the administration of the Clayton Act. 379 U. S. 877. I. New Jersey Wood is engaged in the manufacture of electrical insulation materials, some of which it sells to independent distributors who, in turn, sell to wire and cable manufacturers and fabricators. Minnesota Mining is a diversified company, with one of its divisions producing electrical insulation materials. Essex is a substantial consumer of electrical insulation material. It owned Insulation Wires which distributes that type of material. In August 1956 Minnesota Mining bought all the assets of Insulation Wires and in 1960 the Federal Trade Commission filed a proceeding against it under § 7 of the Clayton Act which resulted in a consent order directing the divestiture by Minnesota Mining of the assets so acquired. This order was dated August 24, 1961. The Commission charged that prior to 1953 Minnesota Mining was the leading manufacturer of electrical insulation tape; that through five transactions in the years 1952 through 1956 it had also brought under its control substantial shares of other major electrical product lines; and that its subsequent acquisition of two of the three largest distributors of these products might have the effect of actually or potentially lessening competition and tending to create a monopoly in various aspects of that commerce. One of the two distributors so acquired was Insulation Wires. Thereafter, within a year, this suit was filed. We need not detail the allegations of the complaint. It is sufficient to say that the gist of it was that prior to August 1956 Insulation Wires was the primary distributor of New Jersey Wood products throughout the United States; that in August 1956 Minnesota Mining acquired all of the assets of Insulation Wires and during the next month notified New Jersey Wood that beginning in January 1957 Insulation Wires would no longer distribute its products. The complaint also charged Minnesota Mining and Essex with conspiring to restrain trade and commerce in the manufacture, sale and distribution of electrical insulation products beginning with the acquisition of Insulation Wires and continuing until the filing of this suit. There were numerous overt acts alleged as being in furtherance of the conspiracy, the first of which was that acquisition. h-i H-Í At the outset it is necessary to examine § 5 (a) of the Clayton Act and its relationship to § 5 (b). The former makes a final judgment or decree in any civil or criminal proceeding brought by or on behalf of the United States prima facie evidence in subsequent private suits “as to all matters respecting which said judgment or decree would be an estoppel as between the parties thereto.” Several distinctions between these sections are apparent and suggest that they are not wholly interdependent. First, the words “final judgment or decree” are used in § 5 (a) and are of crucial significance in its application. However, § 5 (b) tolls the statute of limitations set out in § 4B from the time suit is instituted by the United States regardless of whether a final judgment or decree is ultimately entered. Its applicability in no way turns on the success of the Government in prosecuting its case. Moreover, under § 5 (a) the judgment or decree may be used only as to matters respecting which it would operate as an estoppel between the parties. No such limitation appears in the tolling provision. It applies to every private right of action based in whole or in part on “any matter” complained of in the government suit. When we turn from the express language of these two statutory provisions to the congressional policies underlying them, it becomes even more apparent that the applicability of § 5 (a) to Federal Trade Commission actions should not control the question whether such proceedings toll the statute of limitations. We have discussed these policies at greater length below. At this juncture it is sufficient to say that in framing § 5 (a) Congress focused on the narrow issue of the use by private parties of judgments or decrees as prima facie evidence. This was recognized in Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 340 U. S. 558 (1951), where we stated that the purpose of § 5 (a) was “to minimize the burdens of litigation for injured private suitors by making available to them all matters previously established by the Government in antitrust actions” and to permit them “as large an advantage as the estoppel doctrine would afford had the Government brought suit.” Id., at 568. As we shall show, however, its purpose in adopting § 5 (b) was not so limited, for it was not then dealing with the delicate area in which a judgment secured in an action between two parties may be used by a third. Whatever ambiguities may exist in the legislative history of these provisions as to other questions, it is plain that in § 5 (b) Congress meant to assist private litigants in utilizing any benefits they might cull from government antitrust actions. See S. Rep. No. 619, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 6. The distinction was emphasized in Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. Nisley, 300 F. 2d 561 (1962), where the court, after noting the analysis of § 5 (a) set out in Emich Motors Corp., supra, stated that: “The corollary purpose of the tolling provisions of the second paragraph of Section 5 [now § 5 (b) ] is to vouchsafe the intended benefits of related government proceedings by suspending the running of the statute of limitations until the termination of the government proceedings, and allowing the private suitor one year thereafter in which to prepare and file his suit. The competency of a government judgment in a private suit is necessarily restricted to the requirements of due process. But the tolling of the statute during the pendency of the government litigation is not so limited.” Id., at 569. In our view, therefore, the two sections are not necessarily coextensive; they are governed by different considerations as well as congressional policy objectives. This makes § 5 (b) readily severable from § 5 (a). Even if we assumed arguendo that § 5 (a) is inapplicable to Commission proceedings — a question upon which we venture no opinion — that conclusion would be immaterial in our consideration of § 5 (b) and § 4B. Congress has expressed its belief that private antitrust litigation is one of the surest weapons for effective enforcement of the antitrust laws. This construction will lend considerable impetus to that policy. III. Section 5, later §§ 5 (a) and 5 (b), was passed in response to the plea of President Wilson. In a speech to the Congress on January 20, 1914, he urged that a law be enacted which would permit victims of antitrust violations to have “redress upon the facts and judgments proved and entered in suits by the Government” and that “the statute of limitations ... be suffered to run against such litigants only from the date of the conclusion of the Government’s action.” 51 Cong. Rec. 1964. The broad aim of this enactment was to use “private self-interest as a means of enforcement” of the antitrust laws. Bruce’s Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co., 330 U. S. 743, 751 (1947). The “entire provision [was] intended to help persons of small means who are injured in their property or business by combinations or corporations violating the antitrust laws.” H. R. Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 14. See S. Rep. No. 619, supra, at 6. It may be, as Minnesota Mining contends, that when it was enacted the tolling provision was a logical backstop for the prima facie evidence clause of § 5 (a). But even though § 5 (b) complements § 5 (a) in this respect by permitting a litigant to await the outcome of government proceedings and use any judgment or decree rendered therein- — a benefit which often is of limited practical value- — it is certainly not restricted to that effect. As we have pointed out, the textual distinctions as well as the policy basis of § 5 (b) indicate that it was to serve a more comprehensive function in the congressional scheme of things. The Government’s initial action may aid the private litigant in a number of other ways. The pleadings, transcripts of testimony, exhibits and documents are available to him in most instances. In fact, the rules of the Commission so provide. 16 CFR § 1.132 (e). See generally 16 CFR § 1.131 et seq. Moreover, difficult questions of law may be tested and definitively resolved before the private litigant enters the fray. The greater resources and expertise of the Commission and its staff render the private suitor a tremendous benefit aside from any value he may derive from a judgment or decree. Indeed, so useful is this service that government proceedings are recognized as a major source of evidence for private parties. See Bicks, The Department of Justice and Private Treble Damage Actions, 4 Antitrust Bull. 5 (1959); Loevinger, Handling a Plaintiff’s Antitrust Damage Suit, 4 Antitrust Bull. 29 (1959). Admittedly, there is little in the legislative history to suggest that Congress consciously intended to include Commission actions within the sweep of the tolling provision. But neither is there any substantial evidence that it consciously intended to exclude them. The fact of the matter is that the record of the 1914 legislative proceedings reveals an almost complete absence of any discussion on the tolling problem. It seems that Congress simply did not consider the extent of its coverage in the course of its deliberations. It is in light of this legislative silence that we must determine whether § 4B is tolled by Commission proceedings. In resolving this question we must necessarily rely on the one element of congressional intention which is plain on the record — the clearly expressed desire that private parties be permitted the benefits of prior government actions. Implicit in such an objective is the necessity that the tolling provision include Commission proceedings. Otherwise the benefits flowing from a major segment of the Government’s enforéement effort would, in many cases, be denied to private parties. In this connection, and of crucial significance, is the fact that the potential advantages available to such litigants because of § 5 (b) reach far beyond the specific and limited benefits accruing to them under § 5 (a). Furthermore, the § 5 (b) advantages flow as naturally from Commission proceedings as they do from Justice Department actions. Yet petitioner contends that § 4B must be tolled in the latter but not in the former. Such a grudging interpretation of the interrelationship of § 5 (b) and § 4B, however, would collide head-on with Congress’ basic policy objectives. Acceptance of petitioner’s position would make enjoyment of these intended benefits turn on the arbitrary allocation of enforcement responsibility between the Department and the Commission, and we must therefore reject it. It is true that the precise language of § 5 (b) does not clearly encompass Commission proceedings. But it is not the literal wording of such a provision that is controlling where, as here, Congress has evidenced neither acceptance nor rejection of either interpretation, yet one effects a clearly expressed congressional purpose while the other defeats it. We stated the pivotal question for determination in such an event only this Term in Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U. S. 424, 427 (1965): “[WJhether congressional purpose is effectuated by tolling the statute of limitations in given circumstances.” In order to determine that intent, we must examine “the purposes and policies underlying the limitation provision, the Act itself, and the remedial scheme developed for the enforcement of the rights given by the Act.” Ibid. Guided by these criteria, we think it clear that congressional policy sustaining § 5 (b) would be effectively served only by tolling the statute of limitations in cases such as this, and we deem that policy controlling. This analysis is not a novel one. Mr. Justice Holmes, sitting on circuit, noted in Johnson v. United States, 163 F. 30, 32: “A statute may indicate or require as its justification a change in the policy of the law, although it expresses that change only in the specific cases most likely to occur to the mind. The Legislature has the power to decide what the policy of the law shall be, and if it has intimated its will, however indirectly, that will should be recognized and obeyed. The major premise of the conclusion expressed in a statute, the change of policy that induces the enactment, may not be set out in terms, but it is not an adequate discharge of duty for courts to say: We see what you are driving at, but you have not said it, and therefore we shall go on as before.” We hold, therefore, that the limitation provision of § 4B is tolled by Commission proceedings to the same extent and in the same circumstances as it is by Justice Department actions. In so holding we give effect to Congress’ basic policy objectives in enacting § 5 (b) — objectives which would be frustrated should we reach a contrary conclusion and thereby deprive large numbers of private litigants of the benefits of government antitrust suits simply because those suits were pursued by one governmental agency rather than the other. IV. Minnesota Mining further contends that even though § 5 (b) tolls Commission proceedings, the suit here, insofar as it asserts Sherman Act claims, is not based in part on any matter complained of in the Commission’s proceeding. We cannot agree. New Jersey Wood’s Sherman Act claims rest on an alleged conspiracy to restrain and attempt to monopolize trade and commerce in the manufacture, sale and distribution of electrical insulation products. The purposes of the conspiracy were alleged to be: (1) to control Insulation Wires; (2) to prevent' it from distributing New Jersey Wood products; (3) to insure that Insulation Wires’ supplies were purchased from a Minnesota Mining subsidiary; (4) to effect tie-in sales of electrical insulation products with other Minnesota Mining products; and (5) to have Essex deal only with Insulation Wires in purchasing electrical insulation products to the exclusion of competitive distributors handling New Jersey Wood products. The effect of the conspiracy was alleged to be the complete disruption of the pattern of manufacture, sale and distribution that New Jersey Wood had enjoyed with Insulation Wires and denial to it of access to substantial national markets for electrical insulation products. Certain ly the allegations are based “in part” on the Commission action. It charged that the Insulation Wires acquisition, along with that of another distributor, placed in the hands of Minnesota Mining, a manufacturer, two of the three largest distributors in the business; that following the acquisitions these distributors discontinued distribution of the products of a number of manufacturers who had used them prior to their acquisition by Minnesota Mining; and that the effect of such action by Minnesota Mining was “the actual or potential lessening of competition” in the manufacture, sale and distribution of insulation products and the foreclosure of other manufacturers from a substantial share of the markets for said products. It appears to us that both suits set up substantially the same claims. It is true that the Commission’s Clayton Act proceeding required proof only of a potential anticompetitive effect while the Sherman Act carries the more onerous burden of proof of an actual restraint. The Commission complaint, however, did allege an “actual” as well as a “potential” lessening of competition, i. e., manufacturers “have been foreclosed from a substantial share of the markets.” Moreover, the monopolization count was phrased in terms of an “attempt to monopolize,” which may be illegal though not successful. See United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U. S. 495, 525, 531-532 (1948). Minnesota Mining’s claim seems to be that the crucial difference between the Commission and the New Jersey Wood proceedings is that the former alleges conduct that may substantially lessen competition while the latter asserts activity that has actually done so. We think that this is a distinction without a difference and does not deprive New Jersey Wood of the tolling effect of § 5 (b). That clause provides for tolling as long as the private claim is based “in part on any matter complained of” in the government proceedings. The fact that New Jersey Wood claims that the same conduct has a greater anti-competitive effect does not make the conduct challenged any less a matter complained of in the government action. It merely requires it to meet a greater burden of proof as to the effect of the conspiracy before a Sherman Act claim can be sustained. Affirmed. Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart did not participate in the decision of this case. The case was considered on interlocutory appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b) (1958 ed.). Essex did not appeal and is not a party here. During the pendency of the case in the District Court respondent filed an amended complaint. However, respondent’s theories of recovery and the controlling legal questions are common to both pleadings. 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 18 (1964 ed.). 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2 (1964 ed.). Section 4B of the Clayton Act, 69 Stat. 283, 15 U. S. C. § 15b (1964 ed.), provides that: “Any action to enforce any cause of action under sections 15 or 15a of this title shall be forever barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued. No cause of action barred under existing law on the effective date of this section and sections 15a and 16 of this title shall be revived by said sections.” Section 5 (b), 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 16 (b) (1964 ed.), provides: “(b) Whenever any civil or criminal proceeding is instituted by the United States to prevent, restrain, or punish violations of any of the antitrust laws, but not including an action under section 15a of this title, the running of the statute of limitations in respect of every private right of action arising under said laws and based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in said proceeding shall be suspended during the pendency thereof and for one year thereafter: Provided, however, That whenever the running of the statute of limitations in respect of a cause of action arising under section 15 of this title is suspended hereunder, any action to enforce such cause of action shall be forever barred unless commenced either within the period of suspension or within four years after the cause of action accrued.” See Highland Supply Corp. v. Reynolds Metals Co., 327 F. 2d 725 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1964). Section 5 (a), 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §16 (a) (1964 ed.), provides: “(a) A final judgment or decree heretofore or hereafter rendered in any civil or criminal proceeding brought by or on behalf of the United States under the antitrust laws to the effect that a defendant has violated said laws shall be prima facie evidence against such defendant in any action or proceeding brought by any other party against such defendant under said laws or by the United States under section 15a of this title, as to all matters respecting which said judgment or decree would be an estoppel as between the parties thereto: Provided, That this section shall not apply to consent judgments or decrees entered before any testimony has been taken or to judgments or decrees entered in actions under section 15a of this title.” See Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U. S. 537 (1954). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent Apfelbaum invoked his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination while being questioned before a grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Government then granted him immunity in accordance with 18 U. S. C. § 6002, and he answered the questions propounded to him. He was then charged with and convicted of making false statements in the course of those answers. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, however, because the District Court had admitted into evidence relevant portions of respondent’s grand jury testimony that had not been alleged in the indictment to constitute the “corpus delicti” or “core” of the false-statements offense. Because proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination allows a witness to remain silent, but not to swear falsely, we hold that neither the statute nor the Fifth Amendment requires that the admissibility of immunized testimony be governed by any different rules than other testimony at a trial for making false statements in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1623 (a) (1976 ed., Supp. II). We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I The grand jury had been investigating alleged criminal activities in connection with an automobile dealership located in the Chestnut Hill section of Philadelphia. The investigation focused on a robbery of $175,000 in cash that occurred at the dealership on April 16, 1975, and on allegations that two officers of the dealership staged the robbery in order to repay loan-shark debts. The grand jury also heard testimony that the officers were making extortionate extensions of credit through the Chestnut Hill Lincoln-Mercury dealership. In 1976, respondent Apfelbaum, then an administrative assistant to the District Attorney in Philadelphia, was called to testify because it was thought likely that he was an aider or abettor or an accessory after the fact to the allegedly staged robbery. When the grand jury first sought to question him about his relationship with the two dealership officials suspected of the staged robbery, he claimed his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and refused to testify. The District Judge entered an order pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 6002 granting him immunity and compelling him to testify. Respondent ultimately complied with this order to testify. During the course of his grand jury testimony, respondent made two series of statements that served as the basis for his subsequent indictment and conviction for false swearing. The first series was made in response to questions concerning whether respondent had attempted to locate Harry Brown, one of the two dealership officials, while on a “fishing trip” in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., during the month of December 1975. Respondent testified that he was “positive” he had not attempted to locate Brown, who was also apparently in the Ft. Lauderdale area at the time. In a second series of statements, respondent denied that he had told FBI agents that he had lent $10,000 to Brown. The grand jury later indicted respondent pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 1623 (a) (1976 ed., Supp. II) for making these statements, charging that the two series of statements were false and that respondent knew they were false. At trial, the Government introduced into evidence portions of respondent’s grand jury testimony in order to put the charged statements in context and to show that respondent knew they were false. The excerpts concerned respondent’s relationship with Brown, his 1976 trip to Florida to visit Brown, the discussions he had with Brown on that occasion, and his denial that he had financial dealings with the automobile dealership in Philadelphia or had cosigned a loan for Brown. Respondent objected to the use of all the immunized testimony except the portions charged in the indictment as false. The District Court overruled the objection and admitted the excerpts into evidence on the ground that they were relevant to prove that respondent had knowingly made the charged false statements. The. jury found respondent guilty on both counts of the indictment. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that because the immunized testimony did not constitute “the corpus delicti or core of a defendant’s false swearing indictment” it could not be introduced. 584 F. 2d 1264, 1265 (1978). We granted certiorari because of the importance of the issue and because of a difference in approach to it among the.Courts of Appeals. 440 U. S. 957 (1979). The differing views that this question has elicited from the Courts of Appeals are not surprising, because there are considered statements in one line of cases from this Court, and both statements and actual holdings in another line of cases, that as a matter of strict and literal reading cannot be wholly reconciled. Though most of the decisions of the Courts of Appeals turn on the interaction between perjury and immunity statutes enacted by Congress and the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination conferred by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is of course our first duty to decide whether the statute relied upon in this case to sustain the conviction of respondent may properly be interpreted to do so. We turn now to decision of that question. II Did Congress intend the federal immunity statute, 18 U. S. C. § 6002, to limit the use of a witness’ immunized grand jury testimony in a subsequent prosecution of the witness for false statements made at the grand jury proceeding? Respondent contends that while § 6002 permits the use of a witness’ false statements in a prosecution for perjury or for making false declarations, it establishes an absolute prohibition against the use of truthful immunized testimony in such prosecutions. But this contention is wholly at odds with the explicit language of the statute, and finds no support even in its legislative history. It is a well-established principle of statutory construction that absent clear evidence of a contrary legislative intention, a statute should be interpreted according to its plain language. Here 18 U. S. C. § 6002 provides that when a witness is compelled to testify over his claim of a Fifth Amendment privilege, “no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.” (Emphasis added.) The statute thus makes no distinction between truthful and untruthful statements made during the course of the immunized testimony. Rather, it creates a blanket exemption from the bar against the use of immunized testimony in cases in which the witness is subsequently prosecuted for making false statements. The legislative history of § 6002 shows that Congress intended the perjury and false-declarations exception to be interpreted as broadly as constitutionally permissible. The present statute was enacted as a part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, after a re-examination of the broad transactional immunity statute enacted in response to this Court’s decision in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 (1892). See Hostigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 452, and n. 36 (1972). Its design was not only to bring about uniformity in the operation of immunity grants within the federal system, but also to restrict the grant of immunity to that required by the United States Constitution. Thus, the statute derives from a 1969 report of the National Commission on the Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws, which proposed a general use immunity statute under which “the immunity conferred would be confined to the scope required by the Fifth Amendment.” And as stated in both the Senate and House Reports on the proposed legislation: “This statutory immunity is intended to be as broad as, but no broader than, the privilege against self-incrimination. ... It is designed to reflect the use-restriction immunity concept of Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U. S. 52 (1964) rather [than] the transaction immunity concept of Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 (1892).” In light of the language and legislative history of § 6002, the conclusion is inescapable that Congress intended to permit the use of both truthful and false statements made during the course of immunized testimony if such use was not prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Ill The limitation placed on the use of relevant evidence by the Court of Appeals may be justified, then, only if required by the Fifth Amendment. Respondent contends that his conviction was properly reversed because under the Fifth Amendment his truthful immunized statements were inadmissible at his perjury trial, and the Government never met its burden of showing that the immunized statements it introduced into evidence were not truthful. The Court of Appeals, as noted above, concluded that the Fifth Amendment prohibited the use of all immunized testimony except the “corpus delicti” or “core” of the false swearing indictment. In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeals initially observed that a' grant of immunity must be coextensive with the Fifth Amendment. Kastigar v. United States, supra, at 449. It then reasoned that had respondent not been granted immunity, he would have been entitled under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent. And if he had remained silent, he would not have answered any questions, truthfully or falsely. There consequently would have been no testimony whatsoever to use against him. A prosecution for perjury committed at the immunized proceeding, the Court of Appeals continued, must be permitted because “as a practical matter, if immunity constituted a license to lie, the purpose of immunity would be defeated.” Such a prosecution is but a “narrow exception” carved out to preserve the integrity of the truth-seeking process. But the subsequent use of statements made at the immunized proceeding, other than those alleged in the indictment to be false, is impermissible because the introduction of such statements cannot be reconciled with the privilege against self-incrimination. 584 F. 2d, at 1269-1271. A There is more than one flaw in this reasoning. Initially, it presumes that in order for a grant of immunity to be “coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege,” the witness must be treated as if he had remained silent. This presumption focuses on the effect of the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege, rather than on the protection the privilege is designed to confer. In so doing, it calls into question the constitutionality of all immunity statutes, including “transactional” immunity statutes as well as “use” immunity statutes such as § 6002.- Such grants of immunity would not provide a full and complete substitute for a witness’ silence because, for example, they do not bar the use of the witness’ state-merits in civil proceedings. Indeed, they fail to prevent the use of such statements for any purpose that might cause detriment to the witness other than that resulting from subsequent criminal prosecution. This Court has never held, however, that the Fifth Amendment requires immunity statutes to preclude all uses of immunized testimony. Such a requirement would be inconsistent with the principle that the privilege does not extend to consequences of a -noncriminal nature, such as threats of liability in civil suits, disgrace in the community, or the loss of employment. See, e. g., Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 605-606 (1896); Smith v. United States, 337 U. S. 137, 147 (1949); Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422, 430-431 (1956); Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn. v. Commissioner of Sanitation, 392 U. S. 280, 284-285 (1968); Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273, 279 (1968). And this Court has repeatedly recognized the validity of immunity statutes. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S., at 449, acknowledged that Congress included immunity statutes in many of the regulatory measures adopted in the first half of this century, and that at the time of the enactment of 18 U. S. C. § 6002, the statute under which this prosecution was brought, there were in force over 50 federal immunity statutes as well as similar laws in every State of the Union. 406 U. S., at 447. This Court in Ullmann v. United States, supra, stated that such statutes have “become part of our constitutional fabric.” 350 U. S., at 438. And the validity of such statutes may be traced in our decisions at least as far back as Brown v. Walker, supra. These cases also establish that a strict and literal reading of language in cases such as Counsel-man v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S., at 585 — that an immunity statute “cannot abridge a constitutional privilege, and that it cannot replace or supply one, at least unless it is so broad as to have the same extent in scope and effect” — does not require the sort of “but for” analysis used by the Court of Appeals in order to enable it to survive attack as being violative of the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. Indeed, in Brown v. Walker, supra, at 600, this Court stated that “[t]he danger of extending the principle announced in Counselman v. Hitchcock is that the privilege may be put forward for a sentimental reason, or for a purely fanciful protection of the witness against an imaginary danger, and for the real purpose of securing immunity to some third person, who is interested in concealing the facts to which he would testify.” And in Kastigar v. United States, we concluded that “[t]he broad language in Counselman relied upon by petitioners was unnecessary to the Court’s decision, and cannot be considered binding authority.” 406 U. S., at 454-455. Kastigar also expressly declined a request by the petitioner to reconsider and overrule Brown v. Walker, supra, and Ullmann v. United States, supra, and went on to expressly reaffirm the validity of those decisions. The reasoning of the Court of Appeals is also internally inconsistent in that logically it would not permit a prosecution for perjury or false swearing committed during the course of the immunized testimony. If a witness must be treated as if he had remained silent, the mere requirement that he answer questions, thereby subjecting himself to the possibility of being subsequently prosecuted for perjury or false swearing, places him in a position that is substantially different from that he would have been in had he been permitted to remain silent. All of the Courts of Appeals, however, have recognized that the provision in 18 U. S. C. § 6002 allowing prosecutions for perjury in answering questions following a grant of immunity does not violate the F'fth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. And we ourselves have repeatedly held that perjury prosecutions are permissible for false answers to questions following the grant of immunity. See, e. g., United States v. Wong, 431 U. S. 174 (1977); United States v. Mandujano, 425 U. S. 564 (1976) (plurality opinion) ; id., at 584-585 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 609 (Stewart, J., joined by Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment). It is therefore analytically incorrect to equate the benefits of remaining silent as á result of invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege with the protections conferred by the privilege — protections that may be invoked with respect to matters that pose substantial and real hazards of subjecting a witness to criminal liability at the time he asserts the privilege. For a grant of immunity to provide protection “coextensive” with .that of the Fifth Amendment, it need not treat the witness as if he had remained silent. Such a conclusion, as noted above, is belied by the fact that immunity statutes and prosecutions for perjury committed during the course of immunized testimony are permissible at all. B The principle that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination provides no protection for the commission of perjury has frequently been cited without any elaboration as to its underlying rationale. See, e. g., Bryson v. United States, 396 U. S. 64, 72 (1969); United States v. Knox, 396 U. S. 77, 82 (1969). Its doctrinal foundation, as relied on in both Wong and Mandujano, is traceable to Glickstein v. United States, 222 U. S. 139, 142 (1911). Glickstein stated that the Fifth Amendment “does not endow the person who testifies with a license to commit perjury,” ibid., and that statement has been so often repeated in our cases as to be firmly established constitutional law. But just as we have refused to read literally the broad dicta of Counselman, supra, we are likewise unwilling to decide this case solely upon an epigram contained in Glickstein, supra. Thus, even if, as the Court of Appeals said, a perjury prosecution is but a “narrow exception” to the principle that a witness should be treated as if he had remained silent, it does not follow that the Court of Appeals was correct in its view of the question before us now. Perjury prosecutions based on immunized testimony, even if they be but a “narrow exception” to the principle that a witness should be treated as if he had remained silent after invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege, are permitted by our cases. And so long as they are, there is no principle or decision that limits the admissibility of evidence in a manner peculiar only to them. To so hold would not be an exercise in the balancing of competing constitutional rights, but in a comparison of apples and oranges. For even if both truthful and untruthful testimony from the immunized proceeding are admissible in a subsequent perjury prosecution, the exception surely would still be properly regarded as “narrow,” once it is recognized that the testimony remains inadmissible in all prosecutions for offenses committed prior to the grant of immunity that would have permitted the witness to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege absent the grant. While the application of the Fifth Amendment privilege to various types of claims has changed in some respects over the past three decades, the basic test reaffirmed in each case has been the same. “The central standard for the privilege’s application has been whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and 'real/ and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination. Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367, 374; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 600.” Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39, 53 (1968). Marchetti, which overruled earlier decisions of this Court in United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22 (1953), and Lewis v. United States, 348 U. S. 419 (1955), invalidated the federal wagering statutes at issue in Kahriger and. Lewis on the ground that they contravened the petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination. The practical effect of the requirements of those statutes was to compel petitioner, a professional gambler engaged in ongoing gambling activities that he had commenced and was likely to continue, to choose between openly exposing himself as acting in violation of state and federal gambling laws and risking federal prosecution for tax avoidance. The Court' held that petitioner was entitled to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in these circumstances. But it also observed that “prospective acts will doubtless ordinarily involve only speculative and insubstantial risks of incrimination.” 390 U. S., at 54. Thus, although Marchetti rejected “the rigid chronological distinction adopted in Kahriger and Lewis,” id., at 53, that distinction does not aid respondent here. In United States v. Freed, 401 U. S. 601 (1971), this Court rejected the argument that a registration requirement of the National Firearms Act violated the Fifth Amendment because the information disclosed could be used in connection with offenses that the transferee of the firearm might commit in the future. In so doing, the Court stated: “Appellees’ argument assumes the existence of a periphery of the Self-Incrimination Clause which protects a person against incrimination not only against past or present transgressions but which supplies insulation for a career of crime about to be launched. We cannot give the Self-Incrimination Clause such an expansive interpretation.” Id., at 606-607. And Mr. Justice Brennan in his concurring opinion added: “I agree with the Court that the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not require that immunity be given as to the use of such information in connection with crimes that the transferee might possibly commit in the future with the registered firéarm.” Id., at 611. In light of these decisions, we conclude that the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the use of respondent’s immunized testimony at his trial for false swearing because, at the time he was granted immunity, the privilege would not have protected him against false testimony that he later might decide to give. Respondent’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege arose from his claim that the questions relating to his connection with the Chestnut Hill auto dealership would tend to incriminate him. The Government consequently granted him “use” immunity under § 6002, which prevents the use and derivative use of his testimony with respect to any subsequent criminal case except prosecutions for perjury and false swearing offenses, in exchange for his compelled testimony. The Government has kept its part of the bargain; this is a perjury prosecution and not any other kind of criminal prosecution. The Court of Appeals agreed that such a prosecution might be maintained, but as noted above severely limited the admissibility of immunized testimony to prove the Government’s case. We believe that it could not be fairly said that respondent, at the time he asserted his privilege and was consequently granted immunity, was confronted with more than a “trifling or imaginary” hazard of compelled self-incrimination as a result of the possibility that he might commit perjury during the course of his immunized testimony. In United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323 (1950), we held that an immunity statute that provided that “[n]o testimony given by a witness before . . . any committee of either House . . . shall be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court, except in a prosecution for perjury committed in giving such testimony,”, did not bar the use at respondent’s trial for willful default of the testimony given by her before a congressional committee. In. so-holding, we stated that “[t]here is, in our jurisprudence, no doctrine of ‘anticipatory contempt.’ ” Id., at 341. We hold here that in our jurisprudence there likewise is no doctrine of “anticipatory perjury.” In the criminal law, both a culpable mens rea and a criminal actus reus are generally required for an offense to occur. Similarly, a future intention to commit perjury or to make false statements if granted immunity because of a claim of compulsory self-incrimination is not by itself sufficient to create a “substantial and ‘real’ ” hazard that permits invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591 (1896); Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367 (1951). Therefore, neither the immunity statute nor the Fifth Amendment precludes the use of respondent’s immunized testimony at a subsequent prosecution for making false statements, so long as that testimony conforms to otherwise - applicable rules of evidence. The excéption of a perjury prosecution from the prohibition against the use of immunized testimony may be a narrow one, but it is also a complete one. The Court of Appeals having held otherwise, its judgment is accordingly Reversed. Title 18 U. S. C. § 1623 (a) (1976 ed., Supp. II) provides in pertinent part: “Whoever under oath ... in any proceeding before ... [a] grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” One of the officers was subsequently convicted of collecting extensions of credit by extortionate means in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 894, mail fraud in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1341, racketeering in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1962, and conspiracy in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 371. Title 18 U. S. C. § 6002 provides: “Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-inerimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before or ancillary to— “(1) a court or grand jury of the United States, “(2) an agency of the United States,.or “(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House, “and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this part, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.” After the issuance of the immunity order, respondent had still refused to testify before the grand jury. He agreed to testify after being held in civil contempt under 28 U. S. C. § 1826 and confined for six days. The Seventh Circuit agrees with the Court of Appeals below that the Government may introduce into evidence so much of the witness’ testimony as is essential to establish the corpus delicti of the offense of perjury. United States v. Patrick, 542 F. 2d 381, 385 (1976). The Second and Tenth Circuits have held that false immunized testimony is admissible, but truthful immunized testimony is not, in a subsequent prosecution for perjury. United States v. Dunn, 577 F. 2d 119, 125-126 (CA10 1978), rev’d on other grounds, 442 U. S. 100 (1979); United States v. Berardelli, 565 F. 2d 24, 28 (CA2 1977); United States v. Moss, 562 F. 2d 155, 165 (CA2 1977), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 914 (1978); United States v. Housand, 550 F. 2d 818, 822 (CA2 1977); United States v. Kurzer, 534 F. 2d 511, 518 (CA2 1976). The Sixth and Eighth Circuits have held that immunized testimony may be used for any purpose in such a prosecution. Daniels v. United States, 196 F. 459, 462-463 (CA6 1912); Edelstein v. United States, 149 F. 636, 642-644 (CA8 1906). A principal reason for this divergence in approach originates in the statement in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 585 (1892), that an immunity statute “cannot abridge a constitutional privilege, and that it cannot replace or supply one, at least unless it is so broad as to have the same extent in scope and effect.” This language was reiterated only last Term in New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U. S. 450, 456-457 (1979). As discussed in Part III, infra, strictly speaking even a “transactional” immunity statute, to say nothing of a “use” immunity statute, does not conform to this definition: The mere grant of immunity and consequent compulsion to testify places a witness asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege in the dilemma of having to decide whether to answer the questions truthfully or falsely, a dilemma he never would have faced had he simply been permitted to remain silent upon the invocation of his privilege. Yet properly drawn immunity statutes have long been recognized as valid in this country. Infra, at 125. And it is likewise well established that one may be prosecuted for making false statements while giving immunized testimony. Infra, at 126-127. A source of further difficulty for the Courts of Appeals is language from our recent decisions that, if taken literally, would preclude the introduction of immunized testimony even for the purpose of establishing the “corpus delicti” or core of the perjury offense. In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 453 (1972), in which we upheld the constitutionality of this immunity statute against a challenge that it did not provide protection coextensive with the Fifth Amendment, we said that it “prohibits the prosecutorial authorities from using the compelled testimony in any respect.” And in New Jersey v. Portash, supra, at 459, we stated that under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “a defendant’s compelled statements . . . may not be put to any testimonial use whatever against him in a criminal trial. ‘. . . [Any criminal trial use against a defendant of his involuntary statement is a denial of due process of law.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Doubtless as a result of these divergent holdings and statements none of the Court of Appeals decisions referred to in footnote 5, supra, holds that jalse immunized testimony may not form the basis for a prosecution for perjury or false swearing, but they differ as to how much of the relevant immunized testimony other than that asserted by the Government to be false may be introduced in such a prosecution. Pub. L. 91-452, §201 (a), 84 Stat. 926. The purpose of the Act was “to seek the eradication of organized crime in the United States by-strengthening the legal tools in the evidence-gathering process, by establishing new penal prohibitions, and by providing enhanced sanctions and new remedies to deal with the unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime.” 84 Stat. 923. See, e. g., Measures Relating to Organized Crime, Hearings on S. 30, etc., before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 282-284 (1969) (remarks of Representative Poff and Senator McClellan). At the time the new statute was being considered, there were more than 50 separate federal immunity statutes. Id., at 282. Second Interim Report of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Mar. 17, 1969, reproduced in Hearings on S. 30, supra n. 8, at 292. See also id., at 15, 326; National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Working Papers 1405 (1970). S. Rep. No. 91-617, p. 145 (1969); H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549 p. 42 (1970). Representative Poff, the bill’s chief sponsor in the House, quoted Mr. Justice White’s observation in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 107 (1964), that “‘[i]mmunity must be as broad as, but not harmfully and wastefully broader than, the privilege against self-incrimination.’” 116 Cong. Rec. 35291 (1970). We express no opinion as to the possible intimation in the Reports that the Fifth Amendment would have prohibited an immunity statute any broader than § 6002. Thus, the Court of Appeals’ position is basically a halfway house that does not withstand logical analysis. If the rule is that a witness who is granted immunity may be placed in no worse a position than if he had been permitted to remain silent, the principle that the Fifth Amendment does not protect false statements serves merely as a piece of a legal mosaic justified solely by stare decisis, rather than as part of a doctrinally consistent view of that Amendment. Thus, the Court observed: “Petitioner was confronted by a comprehensive system of federal and state prohibitions against wagering activities; he was required, on pain of criminal prosecution, to provide information which he might reasonably suppose would be available to prosecuting authorities, and which would surely prove a significant ‘link in a chain’ of evidence tending to establish his guilt.” 390 U. S., at 48. And “[e]very aspect of petitioner’s wagering activities,” the Court continued, “subjected him to possible state or federal prosecution,” and the “[information obtained as a consequence of the federal wagering tax laws is readily available to assist the efforts of state and federal authorities to enforce these penalties.” Id., at 47. As recognized by one commentator, Shakespeare’s lines here express sound legal doctrine: “His acts did not o’ertake his bad intent; And must be buried but as an intent That perish’d by the way: thoughts are no subjects, Intents but merely thoughts.” Measure for Measure, Act V. Scene 1; G. Williams, Criminal Law, The General Part 1 (2d ed. 1961). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case we are asked to determine which of two competing claimants — the Federal Government by virtue of its tax lien, or certain petitioning subcontractors by virtue of their rights under Section 36-a of the New York Lien Law — is entitled to a sum of money owed under a general construction contract which was performed by the taxpayer. The taxpayer, Fleetwood Paving Corporation, is a general contractor, which in July or August 1952, agreed to remodel a restaurant belonging to one Ada Bottone, herein referred to as the owner. The petitioners in August and September of that year entered into a subcontract with the taxpayer to supply labor and materials for the remodeling job. Shortly thereafter, the petitioners performed their obligations under the subcontract, but were not fully compensated by the contractor-taxpayer. Therefore, on November 3, 1952, and on November 10, 1952, they filed notices of their mechanic’s liens on the owner’s realty in the office of the Clerk of West-chester County. In June 1953, they instituted actions in the New York Supreme Court to foreclose those liens. By order of court, the owner was permitted to deposit with the Clerk of the court the $2,200 which she still owed under the original construction contract, and she was thereafter dismissed as a defendant in the action. The Government, having previously levied upon the owner’s alleged indebtedness to the taxpayer, was permitted by the court to enter the case as a party defendant. The Government asserted precedence over the claims of petitioners because of the following facts: The Director of Internal Revenue in December 1951 and March 1952 received assessment lists containing assessments against the taxpayer for unpaid federal withholding and social security taxes. On October 31, 1952, the Director filed a notice of federal tax liens m the office of the Clerk of the City of Mount Vernon, New York, which is the city wherein the taxpayer maintained its principal place of business. The Government claimed priority for its tax lien under Sections 3670 and 3671 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The petitioners contended that since the contractor-taxpayer owed them more than $2,200 for labor and materials supplied to the job, under the New York Lien Law, Section 36-a, he had no property interest in the $2,200 which the owner still owed under the original remodeling contract. The New York Supreme Court, Special Term, 140 N. Y. S. 2d 355, granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment. The ground for the decision was that the Government’s tax lien was ineffective since it had not been filed in the office designated by New York law for the filing of liens against realty. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, but on the ground that there was no debt due from the owner to the taxpayer to which the Government’s lien could attach, 2 App. Div. 2d 747, 153 N. Y. S. 2d 268. The court reasoned that the fund deposited by the owner was a substitute for her realty to which the mechanic’s liens had attached; and that since the Government had no lien on the owner’s property, it could have no lien on the fund substituted for that property. On appeal, the New York Court of Appeals held that the tax lien had taken effect prior to the petitioners’ claims. It therefore reversed the lower New York courts, and ruled that the motion of the United States for summary judgment, rather than that of petitioners, should have been granted by the Supreme Court, Special Term. 3 N. Y. 2d 511, 146 N. E. 2d 774. We granted certiorari, 359 U. S. 904. The threshold question in this case, as in all cases where the Federal Government asserts its tax lien, is whether and to what extent the taxpayer had “property” or “rights to property” to which the tax lien could attach. In answering that question, both federal and state courts must look to state law, for it has long been the rule that “in the application of a federal revenue act, state law controls in determining the nature of the legal interest which the taxpayer had in the property . . . sought to be reached by the statute.” Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U. S. 78, 82. Thus, as we held only two Terms ago, Section 3670 “creates no property rights but merely attaches consequences, federally defined, to rights created under state law . . . .” United States v. Bess, 357 U. S. 51, 55. However, once the tax lien has attached to the taxpayer’s state-created interests, we enter the province of federal law, which we have consistently held determines the priority of competing liens asserted against the taxpayer’s “property” or “rights to property.” United States v. Vorreiter, 355 U. S. 15, reversing 134 Colo. 543, 307 P. 2d 475; United States v. White Bear Brewing Co., 350 U. S. 1010, reversing 227 F. 2d 359; United States v. Colotta, 350 U. S. 808, reversing 224 Miss. 33, 79 So. 2d 474; United States v. Scovil, 348 U. S. 218; United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 348 U. S. 215; United States v. Acri, 348 U. S. 211; United States v. City of New Britain, 347 U. S. 81; United States v. Gilbert Associates, 345 U. S. 361; United States v. Security Trust & Sav. Bank, 340 U. S. 47; Illinois v. Campbell, 329 U. S. 362; United States v. Waddill, Holland & Flinn, Inc., 323 U. S. 353. The application of state law in ascertaining the taxpayer’s property rights and of federal law in reconciling the claims of competing lienors is based both upon logic and sound legal principles. This approach strikes a proper balance between the legitimate and traditional interest which the State has in creating and defining the property interest of its citizens, and the necessity for a uniform administration of the federal revenue statutes. Petitioners contend that the New York Court of Appeals did not make its determination in the light of these settled principles. Relying upon the express language of Section 36-a of the Lien Law and upon a number of lower New York court decisions interpreting that statute, petitioners conclude that the money actually received by the contractor-taxpayer and his right to collect amounts still due under the construction contract constitute a direct trust for the benefit of subcontractors, and that the only property rights which the contractor-taxpayer has in the trust are bare legal title to any money actually received and a beneficial interest in so much of the trust proceeds as remain after the claims of subcontractors have been settled. The Government, on the other hand, claims that Section 36-a merely gives the subcontractors an ordinary lien, and that the contractor-taxpayer’s property rights encompass the entire indebtedness of the owner under the construction contract. This conflict should not be resolved by this Court, but by the highest court of the State of New York. We cannot say from the opinion of the Court of Appeals that it has been satisfactorily resolved. We find no discussion in the court’s opinion to indicate the nature of the property rights possessed by the taxpayer under state law. Nor is the application to be made of federal law clearly defined. We believe that it is in the interests of all concerned to have these questions decided by the state courts of New York. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that court so that it may ascertain the property interests of the taxpayer under state law and then dispose of the case according to established principles of law. Vacated and remanded. Section 3670: “If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to such tax, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.” Section 3671: “Unless another date is specifically fixed by law, the lien shall arise at the time the assessment list was received by the collector and shall continue until the liability for such amount is satisfied or becomes unenforceable by reason of lapse of time.” These provisions also appear in the 1954 Code. Int. Rev. Code of 1954, §§ 6321, 6322. McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, Lien Law (1958 Supp.), § 36-a, provides as follows: “The funds received by a contractor from an owner for the improvement of real property are hereby declared to constitute trust funds in the hands of such contractor to be applied first to the payment of claims of subcontractors, architects, engineers, surveyors, laborers and materialmen arising out of the improvement, and to the payment of premiums on surety bond or bonds filed and premiums on insurance accruing during the making of the improvement and any contractor and any officer, director or agent of any contractor who applies or consents to the application of such funds for any other purpose and fails to pay the claims hereinbefore mentioned is guilty of larceny and punishable as provided in section thirteen hundred and two of the penal law. Such trust may be enforced by civil action maintained as provided in article three-a of this chapter by any person entitled to share in the fund, whether or not he shall have filed, or had the right to file, a notice of lien or shall have recovered a judgment for a claim arising out of the improvement. For the purpose of a civil action only, the trust funds shall include the right of action upon an obligation for moneys due or to become due to a contractor, as well as moneys actually received by him.” Section 36-a was repealed on September 1, 1959. N. Y. Laws 1959, c. 696, § 14. The subject matter covered by § 36-a is now included in McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, Lien Law (1959 Supp.), §§70, 71. It is suggested that the definition of the taxpayer’s property interests should be governed by federal law, although supplying the content of this nebulous body of federal law would apparently be left for future decisions. We think that this approach is unsound because it ignores the long-established role that the States have played in creating property interests and places upon the courts the task of attempting to ascertain a taxpayer’s property rights under an undefined rule of federal law. It would indeed be anomalous to say that the taxpayer’s “property and rights to property” included property in which, under the relevant state law, he had no property interest at all. It is said that because of the unique circumstances which existed in Bess, that case does not control here. However, aside from the fact that Bess involved proceeds payable under an insurance policy, whereas this case involves proceeds payable under a construction contract, it is apparent that the relevant circumstances of the two cases are essentially identical. In both cases the Government was attempting to assert its tax lien against what it thought to be the “property and rights to property” of the taxpayer. In both cases an adverse party claimed the right to the property in question on the theory that the taxpayer had never acquired a state-created property interest to which the Government’s tax lien could attach. Finally, in both cases, the Government attempted to characterize the problem as one involving a conflict between competing claimants to be settled solely by the application of federal law. Bess held that state law determines the property interests of a taxpayer in the cash surrender value of an insurance policy, as well as in the proceeds payable upon death. The same considerations which led to our conclusion in Bess require that we look to state law in determining the general contractor’s property interests in this case. It is suggested that the rule announced by Bess and applied in this case is inconsistent with the mandate that federal law governs the relative priority of federal tax liens and state-created liens. However, we fail to perceive wherein lies the inconsistency. It is one thing to say that a taxpayer’s property rights have been and should be created by state law. It is quite another thing to declare that in the interest of efficient tax administration one must look to federal law to resolve the conflict between competing claimants of the taxpayer’s state-created property interests. Subsequent to the Court of Appeals’ decision in the instant case, and after this Court’s decision in United States v. Bess, 357 U. S. 51, the New York Court of Appeals decided the case of In re City of New York, 5 N. Y. 2d 300, 157 N. E. 2d 587, pending on petition for a writ of certiorari sub nom. United States v. Coblentz, No. 259, this Term [post, p. 841]. The Coblentz case is not authority for the disposition of the instant case. The latter involves a determination of property rights under § 36-a of the New York Lien Law, whereas the Coblentz case was concerned with the taxpayer’s property interests under an assignment contract, § 475 of the New York Judiciary Law, and § B15-37.0 of the New York City Administrative Code. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

L

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration in light of Elkins v. United States, ante, p. 206, decided this day. Mr. Justice Frankfurter would reverse on the basis of his dissenting opinion in Rios v. United States, ante, p. 233, and Elkins v. United States, ante, p. 233, decided this day. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code provides bankruptcy protection to “individual[s] with regular income” whose debts fall within statutory limits. 11 U. S. C. §§ 101(30), 109(e). Unlike debtors who file under Chapter 7 and must liquidate their nonexempt assets in order to pay creditors, see §§ 704(a)(1), 726, Chapter 13 debtors are permitted to keep their property, but they must agree to a court-approved plan under which they pay creditors out of their future income, see §§ 1306(b), 1321,1322(a)(1), 1328(a). A bankruptcy trustee oversees the filing and execution of a Chapter 13 debtor’s plan. § 1322(a)(1); see also 28 U. S. C. § 586(a)(3). Section 1325 of Title 11 specifies circumstances under which a bankruptcy court “shall” and “may not” confirm a plan. §§ 1325(a), (b). If an unsecured creditor or the bankruptcy trustee objects to confirmation, § 1325(b)(1) requires the debtor either to pay unsecured creditors in full or to pay all “projected disposable income” to be received by the debtor over the duration of the plan. We granted certiorari to decide how a bankruptcy court should calculate a debtor’s “projected disposable income.” Some lower courts have taken what the parties term the “mechanical approach,” while most have adopted what has been called the “forward-looking approach.” We hold that the “forward-looking approach” is correct. I As previously noted, § 1325 provides that if a trustee or an unsecured creditor objects to a Chapter 13 debtor’s plan, a bankruptcy court may not approve the plan unless it provides for the full repayment of unsecured claims or “provides that all of the debtor’s projected disposable income to be received” over the duration of the plan “will be applied to make payments” in accordance with the terms of the plan. 11 U. S. C. § 1325(b)(1); see also § 1325(b)(1) (2000 ed.). Before the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), 119 Stat. 23, the Bankruptcy Code (Code) loosely defined “disposable income” as “income which is received by the debtor and which is not reasonably necessary to be expended” for the “maintenance or support of the debtor,” for qualifying charitable contributions, or for business expenditures. §§ 1325(b)(2)(A), (B). The Code did not define the term “projected disposable income,” and in most cases, bankruptcy courts used a mechanical approach in calculating projected disposable income. That is, they first multiplied monthly income by the number of months in the plan and then determined what portion of the result was “excess” or “disposable.” See 2 K. Lundin, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy §164.1, p. 164-1, and n. 4 (3d ed. 2000) (hereinafter Lundin (2000 ed.)) (citing cases). In exceptional cases, however, bankruptcy courts took into account foreseeable changes in a debtor’s income or expenses. See In re Heath, 182 B. R. 557, 559-561 (Bkrtcy. App. Panel CA9 1995); In re Richardson, 283 B. R. 783, 799 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Kan. 2002); Tr. of Oral Arg. 7. Accord, 1 Lundin §35.10, at 35-14 (2000 ed.) (“The debtor should take some care to project estimated future income on Schedule I to include anticipated increases or decreases [in income] so that the schedule will be consistent with any evidence of income the debtor would offer at a contested confirmation hearing”). BAPCPA left the term “projected disposable income” undefined but specified in some detail how “disposable income” is to be calculated. “Disposable income” is now defined as “current monthly income received by the debtor” less “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended” for the debt- or’s maintenance and support, for qualifying charitable contributions, and for business expenditures. §§ 1325(b)(2) (A)(i) and (ii) (2006 ed.). “Current monthly income,” in turn, is calculated by averaging the debtor’s monthly income during what the parties refer to as the 6-month lookback period, which generally consists of the six full months preceding the filing of the bankruptcy petition. See § lOl(lOAXAXi). The phrase “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended” in § 1325(b)(2) is also newly defined. For a debtor whose income is below the median for his or her State, the phrase includes the full amount needed for “maintenance or support,” see § 1325(b)(2)(A)(i), but for a debtor with income that exceeds the state median, only certain specified expenses are included, see §§ 707(b)(2) (2006 ed. and Supp. II), 1325(b)(3)(A) (2006 ed.). II A Respondent had $86,793.36 in unsecured debt when she filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in October 2006. In the six months before her filing, she received a one-time buyout from her former employer, and this payment greatly inflated her gross income for April 2006 (to $11,990.03) and for May 2006 (to $15,356.42). App. 84, 107. As a result of these payments, respondent’s current monthly income, as averaged from April through October 2006, was $5,343.70 — a figure that exceeds the median income for a family of one in Kansas. See id., at 78. Respondent’s monthly expenses, calculated pursuant to § 707(b)(2), were $4,228.71. Id., at 83. She reported a monthly “disposable income” of $1,114.98 on Form 22C. Ibid. On the form used for reporting monthly income (Schedule I), she reported income from her new job of $1,922 per month — which is below the state median. Id., at 66; see also id., at 78. On the form used for reporting monthly expenses (Schedule J), she reported actual monthly expenses of $1,772.97. Id., at 68. Subtracting the Schedule J figure from the Schedule I figure resulted in monthly disposable income of $149.03. Respondent filed a plan that would have required her to pay $144 per month for 36 months. See id., at 93. Petitioner, a private Chapter 13 trustee, objected to confirmation of the plan because the amount respondent proposed to pay was less than the full amount of the claims against her, see § 1325(b)(1)(A), and because, in petitioner’s view, respondent was not committing all of her “projected disposable income” to the repayment of creditors, see § 1325(b)(1)(B). According to petitioner, the proper way to calculate projected disposable income was simply to multiply disposable income, as calculated on Form 22C, by the number of months in the commitment period. Employing this mechanical approach, petitioner calculated that creditors would be paid in full if respondent made monthly payments of $756 for a period of 60 months. Id., at 108. There is no dispute that respondent’s actual income was insufficient to make payments in that amount. Tr. of Oral Arg. 3-4. B The Bankruptcy Court endorsed respondent’s proposed monthly payment of $144 but required a 60-month plan period. In re Lanning, No. 06-41037 etc., 2007 WL 1451999, *8 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Kan. 2007). The court agreed with the majority view that the word “projected” in § 1325(b)(1)(B) requires courts “to consider at confirmation the debtor’s actual income as it is reported on Schedule I.” Id., at *5 (emphasis added). This conclusion was warranted by the text of § 1325(b)(1), the Bankruptcy Court reasoned, and was necessary to avoid the absurd result of denying bankruptcy protection to individuals with deteriorating finances in the six months before filing. Ibid. Petitioner appealed to the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which affirmed. In re Lanning, 380 B. R. 17, 19 (2007). The panel noted that, although Congress redefined “disposable income” in 2005, it chose not to alter the pre-existing term “projected disposable income.” Id., at 24. Thus, the panel concluded, there was no reason to believe that Congress intended to alter the pre-BAPCPA practice under which bankruptcy courts determined projected disposable income by reference to Schedules I and J but considered other evidence when there was reason to believe that the schedules did not reflect a debtor’s actual ability to pay. Ibid. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. In re Lanning, 545 F. 3d 1269, 1270 (2008). According to the Tenth Circuit, a court, in calculating “projected disposable income,” should begin with the “presumption” that the figure yielded by the mechanical approach is correct, but the court concluded that this figure may be rebutted by evidence of a substantial change in the debtor’s circumstances. Id., at 1278-1279. This petition followed, and we granted certiorari. 558 U. S. 989 (2009). Ill A The parties differ sharply in their interpretation of § 1325’s reference to “projected disposable income.” Petitioner, advocating the mechanical approach, contends that “projected disposable income” means past average monthly disposable income multiplied by the number of months in a debtor’s plan. Respondent, who favors the forward-looking approach, agrees that the method outlined by petitioner should be determinative in most cases, but she argues that in exceptional eases, where significant changes in a debtor’s financial circumstances are known or virtually certain, a bankruptcy court has discretion to make an appropriate adjustment. Respondent has the stronger argument. First, respondent’s argument is supported by the ordinary meaning of the term “projected.” “When terms used in a statute are undefined, we give them their ordinary meaning.” Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U. S. 179, 187 (1995). Here, the term “projected” is not defined, and in ordinary usage future occurrences are not “projected” based on the assumption that the past will necessarily repeat itself. For example, projections concerning a company’s future sales or the future cashflow from a license take into account anticipated events that may change past trends. See, e. g., Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U. S. 308, 316 (2007) (describing adjustments to “projected sales” in light of falling demand); Innovair Aviation, Ltd. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 498, 502, 504-506 (2008) (calculating projected cashflow and noting that past sales are “not necessarily the number of sales” that will be made in the future). On the night of an election, experts do not “project” the percentage of the votes that a candidate will receive by simply assuming that the candidate will get the same percentage as he or she won in the first few reporting precincts. And sports analysts do not project that a team’s winning percentage at the end of a new season will be the same as the team’s winning percentage last year or the team’s winning percentage at the end of the first month of competition. While a projection takes past events into account, adjustments are often made based on other factors that may affect the final outcome. See In re Kibbe, 361 B. R. 302, 312, n. 9 (Bkrtcy. App. Panel CA1 2007) (per curiam) (contrasting “multiplied,” which “requires only mathematical acumen,” with “projected,” which requires “mathematic acumen adjusted by deliberation and discretion”). Second, the word “projected” appears in many federal statutes, yet Congress rarely has used it to mean simple multiplication. For example, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 defined “projected national yield,” “projected county yield,” and “projected farm yield” as entailing historical averages “adjusted for abnormal weather conditions,” “trends in yields,” and “any significant changes in production practices.” 7 U. S. C. §§ 1301(b)(8)(B), (13)(J), (K). By contrast, we need look no further than the Bankruptcy Code to see that when Congress wishes to mandate simple multiplication, it does so unambiguously — most commonly by using the term “multiplied.” See, e. g., 11 U. S. C. § 1325(b)(3) (“current monthly income, when multiplied by 12”); §§ 704(b)(2), 707(b)(6), (7)(A) (same); §§ 707(b)(2)(A)®, (B)(iv) (“multiplied by 60”). Accord, 2 U. S. C. § 58(b)(1)(B) (“multiplied by the number of months in such year”); 5 U. S. C: § 8415(a) (“multiplied by such individual’s total service”); 42 U. S. C. § 403(f)(3) (“multiplied by the number of months in such year”). Third, pre-BAPCPA case law points in favor of the “forward-looking” approach. Prior to BAPCPA, the general rule was that courts would multiply a debtor’s current monthly income by the number of months in the commitment period as the first step in determining projected disposable income. See, e. g., In re Killough, 900 F. 2d 61, 62-63 (CA5 1990) (per curiam); In re Anderson, 21 F. 3d 355, 357 (CA9 1994); In re Solomon, 67 F. 3d 1128, 1132 (CA4 1995). See 2 Lundin § 164.1, at 164-1 (2000 ed.) (“Most courts focus on the debtor’s current income and extend current income (and expenditures) over the life of the plan to calculate projected disposable income”). But courts also had discretion to account for known or virtually certain changes in the debtor’s income. See Heath, 182 B. R., at 559-561; Richardson, 283 B. R., at 799; In re James, 260 B. R. 498, 514-515 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Idaho 2001); In re Jobe, 197 B. R. 823, 826-827 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Tex. 1996); In re Crompton, 73 B. R. 800, 808 (Bkrtcy. Ct. ED Pa. 1987); see also In re Schyma, 68 B. R. 52, 63 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Minn. 1985) (“[T]he prospect of dividends... is not so certain as to require Debtors or the Court to consider them as regular or disposable income”); In re Krull, 54 B. R. 375, 378 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Colo. 1985) (“Since there are no changes in income which can be clearly foreseen, the Court must simply multiply the debtor’s current disposable income by 36 in order to determine his ‘projected’ income”). This judicial discretion was well documented in contemporary bankruptcy treatises. See 8 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1325.08[4][a], p. 1325-50 (rev. 15th ed. 2004) (hereinafter Collier) (“As a practical matter, unless there are changes which can be clearly foreseen, the court must simply multiply the debtor’s current monthly income by 36 and determine whether the amount to be paid under the plan equals or exceeds that amount” (emphasis added)); 3 W. Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice § 75.10, p. 64 (1991) (“It has been held that the court should focus upon present monthly income and expenditures and, absent extraordinary circumstances, project these current amounts over the life of the plan to determine projected disposable income” (emphasis added)); 2 Lundin § 164.1, at 164-28 to 164-31 (2000 ed.) (describing how reported decisions treated anticipated changes in income, particularly where such changes were “too speculative to be projected”); see also In re Greer, 388 B. R. 889, 892 (Bkrtey. Ct. CD Ill. 2008) (“ As a practical matter, unless there are changes which can be clearly foreseen, the court must simply multiply the debtor’s current monthly income by thirty-six’ ” (quoting 5 Collier ¶ 1325.08[4][a] (15th ed. 1995))); James, supra, at 514 (same) (quoting 8 Collier ¶ 1325.08[4][a] (rev. 15th ed. 2000)); Crompton, supra, at 808 (same) (citing 5 Collier ¶¶ 1325.08[4][a], [b], at 1325-47 to 1325-48 (15th ed. 1986)). Accord, 8 id., ¶ 1325.08[4][b], at 1325-53 (rev. 15th ed. 2007) (“As with the income side of the budget, the court must simply use the debtor’s current expenses, unless a change in them is virtually certain” (emphasis added)). Indeed, petitioner concedes that courts possessed this discretion prior to BAPCPA. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7. Pre-BAPCPA bankruptcy practice is telling because we “ ‘ “will not read the Bankruptcy Code to erode past bankruptcy practice absent a clear indication that Congress intended such a departure.”’” Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U. S. 443, 454 (2007); Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 539 (2004); Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U. S. 213, 221 (1998); see also Grogan v. Garner, 498 U. S. 279, 290 (1991); Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U. S. 36, 47 (1986). Congress did not amend the term “projected disposable income” in 2005, and pre-BAPCPA bankruptcy practice reflected a widely acknowledged and well-documented view that courts may take into account known or virtually certain changes to debtors’ income or expenses when projecting disposable income. In light of this historical practice, we would expect that, had Congress intended for “projected” to carry a specialized— and indeed, unusual — meaning in Chapter 13, Congress would have said so expressly. Cf., e. g., 26 U. S. C. §§ 279(c)(3)(A), (B) (expressly defining “projected earnings” as reflecting a 3-year historical average). B The mechanical approach also clashes repeatedly with the terms of 11 U. S. C. § 1325. First, § 1325(b)(l)(B)’s reference to projected disposable income “to be received in the applicable commitment period” strongly favors the forward-looking approach. There is no dispute that respondent would in fact receive far less than $756 per month in disposable income during the plan period, so petitioner’s projection does not accurately reflect “income to be received” during that period. See In re Nowlin, 576 F. 3d 258, 263 (CA5 2009). The mechanical approach effectively reads this phrase out of the statute when a debtor’s current disposable income is substantially higher than the income that the debtor predictably will receive during the plan period. See Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U. S. 57, 62 (1998) (“[W]e are hesitant to adopt an interpretation of a congressional enactment which renders superfluous another portion of that same law” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Second, § 1325(b)(1) directs courts to determine projected disposable income “as of the effective date of the plan,” which is the date on which the plan is confirmed and becomes binding, see § 1327(a). Had Congress intended for projected disposable income to be nothing more than a multiple of disposable income in all cases, we see no reason why Congress would not have required courts to determine that value as of the filing date of the plan. See Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proe. 3015(b) (requiring that a plan be filed within 14 days of the filing of a petition). In the very next section of the Code, for example, Congress specified that a debtor shall commence payments “not later than 30 days after the date of the filing of the plan.” § 1326(a)(1) (emphasis added). Congress’ decision to require courts to measure projected disposable income “as of the effective date of the plan” is more consistent with the view that Congress expected courts to consider postfiling information about the debtor’s financial circumstances. See 545 F. 3d, at 1279 (‘‘[Determining whether or not a debtor has committed all projected disposable income to repayment of the unsecured creditors ‘as of the effective date of the plan’ suggests consideration of the debtor’s actual financial circumstances as of the effective date of the plan”). Third, the requirement that projected disposable income “will be applied to make payments” is most naturally read to contemplate that the debtor will actually pay creditors in the calculated monthly amounts. § 1325(b)(1)(B). But when, as of the effective date of a plan, the debtor lacks the means to do so, this language is rendered a hollow command. C The arguments advanced in favor of the mechanical approach are unpersuasive. Noting that the Code now provides a detailed and precise definition of “disposable income,” proponents of the mechanical approach maintain that any departure from this method leaves that definition “‘with no apparent purpose.’ ” In re Kagenveama, 541 F. 3d 868, 873 (CA9 2008). This argument overlooks the important role that the statutory formula for calculating “disposable income” plays under the forward-looking approach. As the Tenth Circuit recognized in this case, a court taking the forward-looking approach should begin by calculating disposable income, and in most cases, nothing more is required. It is only in unusual cases that a court may go further and take into account other known or virtually certain information about the debtor’s future income or expenses. Petitioner faults the Tenth Circuit for referring to a rebut-table “presumption” that the figure produced by the mechanical approach accurately represents a debtor’s “projected disposable income.” See 545 F. 3d, at 1278-1279. Petitioner notes that the Code makes no reference to any such presumption but that related Code provisions expressly create other rebuttable presumptions. See §§707(b)(2)(A)(i) and (B)(i). He thus suggests that the Tenth Circuit improperly supplemented the text of the Code. The Tenth Circuit’s analysis, however, simply heeds the ordinary meaning of the term “projected.” As noted, a person making a projection uses past occurrences as a starting point, and that is precisely what the Tenth Circuit prescribed. See, e. g., Nowlin, supra, at 260, 263. Petitioner argues that only the mechanical approach is consistent with § 1129(a)(15)(B), which refers to “projected disposable income of the debtor (as defined in section 1325(b)(2)).” This cross-reference, petitioner argues, shows that Congress intended for the term “projected disposable income” to incorporate, presumably in all contexts, the defined term “disposable income.” It is evident that § 1129(a) (15)(B) refers to the defined term “disposable income,” see § 1325(b)(2), but that fact offers no insight into the meaning of the word “projected” in §§ 1129(a)(15)(B) and 1325(b)(1)(B). We fail to see how that word acquires a specialized meaning as a result of this cross-reference — particularly where both §§ 1129(a)(15)(B) and 1325(b)(1)(B) refer to projected disposable income “to be received” during the relevant period. See supra, at 517-518. Petitioner also notes that § 707 allows courts to take “special circumstances” into consideration, but that § 1325(b)(3) incorporates § 707 only with respect to calculating expenses. See In re Wilson, 397 B. R. 299, 314-315 (Bkrtcy. Ct. MDNC 2008). Thus, he argues, a “special circumstances” exception should not be inferred with respect to the debtor’s income. We decline to infer from § 1325’s incorporation of § 707 that Congress intended to eliminate, sub silentio, the discretion that courts previously exercised when projecting disposable income to account for known or virtually certain changes. Accord, In re Liverman, 383 B. R. 604, 613, and n. 15 (Bkrtcy. Ct. NJ 2008). D In cases in which a debtor’s disposable income during the 6-month lookback period is either substantially lower or higher than the debtor’s disposable income during the plan period, the mechanical approach would produce senseless results that we do not think Congress intended. In cases in which the debtor’s disposable income is higher during the plan period, the mechanical approach would deny creditors payments that the debtor could easily make. And where, as in the present case, the debtor’s disposable income during the plan period is substantially lower, the mechanical approach would deny the protection of Chapter 13 to debtors who meet the chapter’s main eligibility requirements. Here, for example, respondent is an “individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular” to allow her “to make payments under a plan,” § 101(30), and her debts fall below the limits set out in § 109(e). But if the mechanical approach were used, she could not file a confirmable plan. Under § 1325(a)(6), a plan cannot be confirmed unless “the debtor will be able to make all payments under the plan and to comply with the plan.” And as petitioner concedes, respondent could not possibly make the payments that the mechanical approach prescribes. In order to avoid or at least to mitigate the harsh results that the mechanical approach may produce for debtors, petitioner advances several possible escape strategies. He proposes no comparable strategies for creditors harmed by the mechanical approach, and in any event none of the maneuvers that he proposes for debtors is satisfactory. 1 Petitioner first suggests that a debtor may delay filing a petition so as to place any extraordinary income outside the 6-month lookback period. We see at least two problems with this proposal. First, delay is often not a viable option for a debtor sliding into bankruptcy. “Potential Chapter 13 debtors typically find a lawyer’s office when they are one step from financial Armageddon: There is a foreclosure sale of the debtor’s home the next day; the debtor’s only car was mysteriously repossessed in the dark of last night; a garnishment has reduced the debtor’s take-home pay below the ordinary requirements of food and rent. Instantaneous relief is expected, if not necessary.” K. Lundin & W. Brown, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy §3.1[2] (rev. 4th ed. 2009), http://www.chl3online.com/Subscriber/Chapter_13_ Bankruptey_4th_Lundin_Brown.htm (as visited June 3, 2010, and available in Clerk of Court’s ease file). See also id., §38.1 (“Debtor’s counsel often has little discretion when to file the Chapter 13 case”). Second, even when a debtor is able to delay filing a petition, such delay could be risky if it gives the appearance of bad faith. See 11 U. S. C. § 1325(a)(7) (requiring, as a condition of confirmation, that “the action of the debtor in filing the petition was in good faith”); see also, e. g., In re Myers, 491 F. 3d 120, 125 (CA3 2007) (citing “ ‘the timing of the petition’” as a factor to be considered in assessing a debt- or’s compliance with the good-faith requirement). Accord, Neufeld v. Freeman, 794 F. 2d 149, 153 (CA4 1986) (a debt- or’s prepetition conduct may inform the court’s good-faith inquiry). 2 Petitioner next argues that a debtor with unusually high income during the six months prior to the filing of a petition could seek leave to delay filing a schedule of current income (Schedule I) and then ask the bankruptcy court to exercise its authority under § 101(10A)(A)(ii) to select a 6-month period that is more representative of the debtor’s future disposable income. We see little merit in this convoluted strategy. If the Code required the use of the mechanical approach in all cases, this strategy would improperly undermine what the Code demands. And if, as we believe, the Code does not insist upon rigid adherence to the mechanical approach in all cases, this strategy is not needed. In any event, even if this strategy were allowed, it would not help all debtors whose disposable income during the plan period is sharply lower than their previous disposable income. 3 Petitioner suggests that a debtor can dismiss the petition and refile at a later, more favorable date. But petitioner offers only the tepid assurance that courts “generally” do not find this practice to be abusive. Brief for Petitioner 53. This questionable stratagem plainly circumvents the statutory limits on a court’s ability to shift the lookback period, see supra, at 522, and n. 6, and should give debtors pause. Cf. In re Glenn, 288 B. R. 516, 520 (Bkrtcy. Ct. ED Tenn. 2002) (noting that courts should consider, among other factors, “whether this is the first or [a] subsequent filinfg]” when assessing a debtor’s compliance with the good-faith requirement). 4 Petitioner argues that respondent might have been able to obtain relief by filing under Chapter 7 or by converting her Chapter 13 petition to one under Chapter 7. The availability of Chapter 7 to debtors like respondent who have above-median incomes is limited. In respondent’s case, a presumption of abuse would attach under § 707(b)(2)(A)(i) because her disposable income, “multiplied by 60,” exceeds the amounts specified in subclauses (I) and (II). See also § 707(b)(1) (allowing a court to dismiss a petition filed by a debtor “whose debts are primarily consumer debts... if it finds that the granting of relief would be an abuse of the provisions of this chapter”); App. 86-88 (“Notice to Individual Consumer Debtor under § 342(b) of the Bankruptcy Code”; “If your income is greater than the median income for your state of residence and family size, in some cases, creditors have the right to file a motion requesting that the court dismiss your case under § 707(b) of the Code”). Nevertheless, petitioner argues, respondent might have been able to overcome this presumption by claiming that her case involves “special circumstances” within the meaning of § 707(b)(2)(B)(i). Section 707 identifies as examples of “special circumstances” a “serious medical condition or a call or order to active duty in the Armed Forces,” ibid., and petitioner directs us to no authority for the proposition that a prepetition decline in income would qualify as a “special circumstance.” In any event, the “special circumstances” exception is available only to the extent that “there is no reasonable alternative,” ibid., a proposition we reject with our interpretation of § 1325(b)(1) today. In sum, each of the strategies that petitioner identifies for mitigating the anomalous effects of the mechanical approach is flawed. There is no reason to think that Congress meant for any of these strategies to operate as a safety valve for the mechanical approach. IV We find petitioner’s remaining arguments unpersuasive. Consistent with the text of § 1325 and pre-BAPCPA practice, we hold that when a bankruptcy court calculates a debtor’s projected disposable income, the court may account for changes in the debtor’s income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation. We therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered. However, if a debtor does not file the required schedule (Schedule I), the bankruptcy court may select a different 6-month period. See § 101(10A)(A)(ii). The formula for above-median-income debtors is known as the “means test” and is reflected in a schedule (Form 22C) that a Chapter 13 debtor must file. See Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. Official Form 22C (2010); In re Liverman, 383 B. R. 604, 606, n. 1, 608-609 (Bkrtcy. Ct. NJ 2008). See also, e. g., 8 U. S. C. §§ 1364(a), (c)(2) (requiring the triennial immigration-impact report to include information “projected for the succeeding five-year period, based on reasonable estimates substantiated by the best available evidence”); 10 U. S. C. §2433a(a)(2)(B) (2006 ed., Supp. Ill) (“projected cost of completing the [defense acquisition] program based on reasonable modification of [current] requirements”); 15 U. S. C. §719e(c)(2) (2006 ed.) (“projected natural gas supply and demand”); 25 U. S. C. §§ 2009(c)(1), (2) (requiring the Director of the Office of Indian Education Programs to submit an annual report containing certain projections and “a description of the methods and formulas used to calculate the amounts projected”). When pre-BAPCPA courts declined to make adjustments based on possible changes in a debtor’s future income or expenses, they did so because the changes were not sufficiently foreseeable, not because they concluded that they lacked discretion to depart from a strictly mechanical approach. In In re Solomon, 67 F. 3d 1128 (1995), for example, the Fourth Circuit refused to make such an adjustment because it deemed disbursements For the same reason, the phrase “[f]or purposes of this subsection” in § 1325(b)(2) is not rendered superfluous by the forward-looking approach. Under Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., creates a process called "inter partes review." That review process allows a third party to ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reexamine the claims in an already-issued patent and to cancel any claim that the agency finds to be unpatentable in light of prior art. See § 102 (requiring "novel[ty]"); § 103 (disqualifying claims that are "obvious"). We consider two provisions of the Act. The first says: "No Appeal.-The determination by the Director [of the Patent Office] whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and non-appealable." § 314(d). Does this provision bar a court from considering whether the Patent Office wrongly "determin[ed]... to institute an inter partes review," ibid., when it did so on grounds not specifically mentioned in a third party's review request? The second provision grants the Patent Office the authority to issue "regulations... establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter." § 316(a)(4). Does this provision authorize the Patent Office to issue a regulation stating that the agency, in inter partes review, "shall [construe a patent claim according to] its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"? 37 CFR § 42.100(b) (2015). We conclude that the first provision, though it may not bar consideration of a constitutional question, for example, does bar judicial review of the kind of mine-run claim at issue here, involving the Patent Office's decision to institute inter partes review. We also conclude that the second provision authorizes the Patent Office to issue the regulation before us. See, e.g., United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) ; Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). I A An inventor obtains a patent by applying to the Patent Office. A patent examiner with expertise in the relevant field reviews an applicant's patent claims, considers the prior art, and determines whether each claim meets the applicable patent law requirements. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112. Then, the examiner accepts a claim, or rejects it and explains why. See § 132(a). If the examiner rejects a claim, the applicant can resubmit a narrowed (or otherwise modified) claim, which the examiner will consider anew, measuring the new claim against the same patent law requirements. If the examiner rejects the new claim, the inventor typically has yet another chance to respond with yet another amended claim. Ultimately, the Patent Office makes a final decision allowing or rejecting the application. The applicant may seek judicial review of any final rejection. See §§ 141(a), 145. For several decades, the Patent Office has also possessed the authority to reexamine-and perhaps cancel-a patent claim that it had previously allowed. In 1980, for example, Congress enacted a statute providing for "ex parte reexamination." Act to Amend the Patent and Trademark Laws, 35 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. That statute (which remains in effect) gives "[a]ny person at any time" the right to "file a request for reexamination" on the basis of certain prior art "bearing on the patentability" of an already-issued patent. §§ 301(a)(1), 302. If the Patent Office concludes that the cited prior art raises "a substantial new question of patentability," the agency can reexamine the patent. § 303(a). And that reexamination can lead the Patent Office to cancel the patent (or some of its claims). Alternatively, the Director of the Patent Office can, on her "own initiative," trigger such a proceeding. Ibid. And, as with examination, the patent holder can seek judicial review of an adverse final decision. § 306. In 1999 and 2002, Congress enacted statutes that established another, similar procedure, known as "inter partes reexamination." Those statutes granted third parties greater opportunities to participate in the Patent Office's reexamination proceedings as well as in any appeal of a Patent Office decision. See, e.g., American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, § 297 et seq. (2006 ed.) (superseded). In 2011, Congress enacted the statute before us. That statute modifies "inter partes reexamination, " which it now calls "inter partes review." See H.R.Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, pp. 46-47 (2011) (H.R. Rep.). Like inter partes reexamination, any third party can ask the agency to initiate inter partes review of a patent claim. But the new statute has changed the standard that governs the Patent Office's institution of the agency's process. Instead of requiring that a request for reexamination raise a "substantial new question of patentability," it now requires that a petition show "a reasonable likelihood that" the challenger "would prevail." Compare § 312(a) (2006 ed.) (repealed) with § 314(a) (2012 ed.). The new statute provides a challenger with broader participation rights. It creates within the Patent Office a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) composed of administrative patent judges, who are patent lawyers and former patent examiners, among others. § 6. That Board conducts the proceedings, reaches a conclusion, and sets forth its reasons. See ibid. The statute sets forth time limits for completing this review. § 316(a)(11). It grants the Patent Office the authority to issue rules. § 316(a)(4). Like its predecessors, the statute authorizes judicial review of a "final written decision" canceling a patent claim. § 319. And, the statute says that the agency's initial decision "whether to institute an inter partes review" is "final and nonappealable." § 314(d) ; compare ibid. with §§ 312(a), (c) (2006 ed.) (repealed) (the "determination" that a petition for inter partes reexamination "raise[s]" "a substantial new question of patentability" is "final and non-appealable"), and § 303(c) (2012 ed.) (similar in respect to ex parte reexamination). B In 2002, Giuseppe A. Cuozzo applied for a patent covering a speedometer that will show a driver when he is driving above the speed limit. To understand the basic idea, think of the fact that a white speedometer needle will look red when it passes under a translucent piece of red glass or the equivalent (say, red cellophane). If you attach a piece of red glass or red cellophane to a speedometer beginning at 65 miles per hour, then, when the white needle passes that point, it will look red. If we attach the red glass to a plate that can itself rotate, if we attach the plate to the speedometer, if we connect the plate to a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, and if we enter onto a chip or a disk all the speed limits on all the Nation's roads, then the GPS can signal where the car is, the chip or disk can signal the speed limit at that place, and the plate can rotate to the right number on the speedometer. Thus, if the speed limit is 35 miles per hour, then the white speedometer needle will pass under the red plate at 35, not 65, and the driver will know if he is driving too fast. In 2004, the Patent Office granted the patent. See U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 (Cuozzo Patent). The Appendix contains excerpts from this patent, offering a less simplified (and more technical) description. C Petitioner Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC (Cuozzo), now holds the rights to the Cuozzo Patent. In 2012, Garmin International, Inc., and Garmin USA, Inc., filed a petition seeking inter partes review of the Cuozzo Patent's 20 claims. Garmin backed up its request by stating, for example, that the invention described in claim 17 was obvious in light of three prior patents, the Aumayer, Evans, and Wendt patents. U.S. Patent No. 6,633,811 ; U.S. Patent No. 3,980,041 ; and U.S. Patent No. 2,711,153. Cf. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co., 321 U.S. 275, 280, 64 S.Ct. 593, 88 L.Ed. 721 (1944) (Black, J., dissenting) ("[S]omeone, somewhere, sometime, made th [is] discovery [but] I cannot agree that this patentee is that discoverer"). The Board agreed to reexamine claim 17, as well as claims 10 and 14. The Board recognized that Garmin had not expressly challenged claim 10 and claim 14 on the same obviousness ground. But, believing that "claim 17 depends on claim 14 which depends on claim 10," the Board reasoned that Garmin had "implicitly" challenged claims 10 and 14 on the basis of the same prior inventions, and it consequently decided to review all three claims together. App. to Pet. for Cert. 188a. After proceedings before the Board, it concluded that claims 10, 14, and 17 of the Cuozzo Patent were obvious in light of the earlier patents to which Garmin had referred. The Board explained that the Aumayer patent "makes use of a GPS receiver to determine... the applicable speed limit at that location for display," the Evans patent "describes a colored plate for indicating the speed limit," and the Wendt patent "describes us[ing] a rotatable pointer for indicating the applicable speed limit." Id., at 146a-147a. Anyone, the Board reasoned, who is "not an automaton"-anyone with "ordinary skill" and "ordinary creativity"-could have taken the automated approach suggested by the Aumayer patent and applied it to the manually adjustable signals described in the Evans and Wendt patents. Id., at 147a. The Board also concluded that Cuozzo's proposed amendments would not cure this defect, id., at 164a-166a, and it consequently denied Cuozzo's motion to amend its claims. Ultimately, it ordered claims 10, 14, and 17 of the Cuozzo Patent canceled, id., at 166a. Cuozzo appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Cuozzo argued that the Patent Office improperly instituted inter partes review, at least in respect to claims 10 and 14, because the agency found that Garmin had only implicitly challenged those two claims on the basis of the Aumayer, Evans, and Wendt patents, while the statute required petitions to set forth the grounds for challenge "with particularity." § 312(a)(3). Cuozzo also argued that the Board, when construing the claims, improperly used the interpretive standard set forth in the Patent Office's regulation (i.e., it gave those claims their "broadest reasonable construction," 37 CFR § 42.100(b) ), when it should have applied the standard that courts normally use when judging a patent's validity (i.e., it should have given those claims their "ordinary meaning... as understood by a person of skill in the art," Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (C.A.Fed.2005) (en banc)). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals rejected both arguments. First, the panel majority pointed out that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) made the decision to institute inter partes review "nonappealable." In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1273 (C.A.Fed.2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the panel majority affirmed the application of the broadest reasonable construction standard on the ground (among others) that the regulation was a reasonable, and hence lawful, exercise of the Patent Office's statutorily granted rulemaking authority. Id., at 1278-1279 ; see § 314(a)(4). By a vote of 6 to 5, the Court of Appeals denied Cuozzo's petition for rehearing en banc. In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, 793 F.3d 1297, 1298 (C.A.Fed.2015). We granted Cuozzo's petition for certiorari to review these two questions. II Like the Court of Appeals, we believe that Cuozzo's contention that the Patent Office unlawfully initiated its agency review is not appealable. For one thing, that is what § 314(d) says. It states that the "determination by the [Patent Office] whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable. " (Emphasis added.) For another, the legal dispute at issue is an ordinary dispute about the application of certain relevant patent statutes concerning the Patent Office's decision to institute inter partes review. Cuozzo points to a related statutory section, § 312, which says that petitions must be pleaded "with particularity." Those words, in its view, mean that the petition should have specifically said that claims 10 and 14 are also obvious in light of this same prior art. Garmin's petition, the Government replies, need not have mentioned claims 10 and 14 separately, for claims 10, 14, and 17 are all logically linked; the claims "rise and fall together," and a petition need not simply repeat the same argument expressly when it is so obviously implied. See 793 F.3d, at 1281. In our view, the "No Appeal" provision's language must, at the least, forbid an appeal that attacks a "determination... whether to institute" review by raising this kind of legal question and little more. § 314(d). Moreover, a contrary holding would undercut one important congressional objective, namely, giving the Patent Office significant power to revisit and revise earlier patent grants. See H.R. Rep., at 45, 48 (explaining that the statute seeks to "improve patent quality and restore confidence in the presumption of validity that comes with issued patents"); 157 Cong. Rec. 9778 (2011) (remarks of Rep. Goodlatte) (noting that inter partes review "screen[s] out bad patents while bolstering valid ones"). We doubt that Congress would have granted the Patent Office this authority, including, for example, the ability to continue proceedings even after the original petitioner settles and drops out, § 317(a), if it had thought that the agency's final decision could be unwound under some minor statutory technicality related to its preliminary decision to institute inter partes review. Further, the existence of similar provisions in this, and related, patent statutes reinforces our conclusion. See § 319 (limiting appellate review to the "final written decision"); § 312(c) (2006 ed.) (repealed) (the "determination" that a petition for inter partes reexamination "raise[s]" a "substantial new question of patentability" is "final and non-appealable"); see also § 303(c) (2012 ed.); In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1367 (C.A.Fed.1998) ("Section 303... is directed toward the [Patent Office's] authority to institute a reexamination, and there is no provision granting us direct review of that decision"). The dissent, like the panel dissent in the Court of Appeals, would limit the scope of the "No Appeal" provision to interlocutory appeals, leaving a court free to review the initial decision to institute review in the context of the agency's final decision. Post, at 2148 - 2149, 2150 - 2151 (ALITO, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); 793 F.3d, at 1291 (Newman, J., dissenting). We cannot accept this interpretation. It reads into the provision a limitation (to interlocutory decisions) that the language nowhere mentions and that is unnecessary. The Administrative Procedure Act already limits review to final agency decisions. 5 U.S.C. § 704. The Patent Office's decision to initiate inter partes review is "preliminary," not "final." Ibid. And the agency's decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office's discretion. See § 701(a)(2); 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (no mandate to institute review); see also post, at 2153, and n. 6. So, read as limited to such preliminary and discretionary decisions, the "No Appeal" provision would seem superfluous. The dissent also suggests that its approach is a "familiar practice," consistent with other areas of law. Post, at 2152. But the kind of initial determination at issue here-that there is a "reasonable likelihood" that the claims are unpatentable on the grounds asserted-is akin to decisions which, in other contexts, we have held to be unreviewable. See Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1090, 1097-1098, 188 L.Ed.2d 46 (2014) ("The grand jury gets to say-without any review, oversight, or second-guessing-whether probable cause exists to think that a person committed a crime"). We recognize the "strong presumption" in favor of judicial review that we apply when we interpret statutes, including statutes that may limit or preclude review. Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1645, 1650-1651, 191 L.Ed.2d 607 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). This presumption, however, may be overcome by " 'clear and convincing' " indications, drawn from "specific language," "specific legislative history," and "inferences of intent drawn from the statutory scheme as a whole," that Congress intended to bar review. Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U.S. 340, 349-350, 104 S.Ct. 2450, 81 L.Ed.2d 270 (1984). That standard is met here. The dissent disagrees, and it points to Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, 470 U.S. 768, 105 S.Ct. 1620, 84 L.Ed.2d 674 (1985), to support its view that, in light of this presumption, § 314(d) should be read to permit judicial review of any issue bearing on the Patent Office's preliminary decision to institute inter partes review. See post, at 2150 - 2151. Lindahl is a case about the judicial review of disability determinations for federal employees. We explained that a statute directing the Office of Personnel Management to " 'determine questions of disability,' " and making those decisions " 'final,' " " 'conclusive,' " and " 'not subject to review,' " barred a court from revisiting the "factual underpinnings of... disability determinations"-though it permitted courts to consider claims alleging, for example, that the Office of Personnel Management "'substantial[ly] depart[ed] from important procedural rights.' " 470 U.S., at 771, 791, 105 S.Ct. 1620. Thus, Lindahl's interpretation of that statute preserved the agency's primacy over its core statutory function in accord with Congress' intent. Our interpretation of the "No Appeal" provision here has the same effect. Congress has told the Patent Office to determine whether inter partes review should proceed, and it has made the agency's decision "final" and "nonappealable." § 314(d). Our conclusion that courts may not revisit this initial determination gives effect to this statutory command. Moreover, Lindahl's conclusion was consistent with prior judicial practice in respect to those factual agency determinations, and legislative history "strongly suggest[ed]" that Congress intended to preserve this prior practice. Id., at 780, 105 S.Ct. 1620. These features, as explained above, also support our interpretation: The text of the "No Appeal" provision, along with its place in the overall statutory scheme, its role alongside the Administrative Procedure Act, the prior interpretation of similar patent statutes, and Congress' purpose in crafting inter partes review, all point in favor of precluding review of the Patent Office's institution decisions. Nevertheless, in light of § 314(d)'s own text and the presumption favoring review, we emphasize that our interpretation applies where the grounds for attacking the decision to institute inter partes review consist of questions that are closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to the Patent Office's decision to initiate inter partes review. See § 314(d) (barring appeals of "determinations... to initiate an inter partes review under this section " (emphasis added)). This means that we need not, and do not, decide the precise effect of § 314(d) on appeals that implicate constitutional questions, that depend on other less closely related statutes, or that present other questions of interpretation that reach, in terms of scope and impact, well beyond "this section." Cf. Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 367, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974) (statute precluding review of "any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans' Administration" does not bar review of constitutional challenges (emphasis deleted and internal quotation marks omitted)); Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535, 544-545, 108 S.Ct. 1372, 99 L.Ed.2d 618 (1988) (that same statute does not bar review of decisions made under different statutes enacted at other times). Thus, contrary to the dissent's suggestion, we do not categorically preclude review of a final decision where a petition fails to give "sufficient notice" such that there is a due process problem with the entire proceeding, nor does our interpretation enable the agency to act outside its statutory limits by, for example, canceling a patent claim for "indefiniteness under § 112" in inter partes review. Post, at 2153 - 2155. Such "shenanigans" may be properly reviewable in the context of § 319 and under the Administrative Procedure Act, which enables reviewing courts to "set aside agency action" that is "contrary to constitutional right," "in excess of statutory jurisdiction," or "arbitrary [and] capricious." Compare post, at 2155, with 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D). By contrast, where a patent holder merely challenges the Patent Office's "determin[ation] that the information presented in the petition... shows that there is a reasonable likelihood" of success "with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged," § 314(a), or where a patent holder grounds its claim in a statute closely related to that decision to institute inter partes review, § 314(d) bars judicial review. In this case, Cuozzo's claim that Garmin's petition was not pleaded "with particularity" under § 312 is little more than a challenge to the Patent Office's conclusion, under § 314(a), that the "information presented in the petition" warranted review. Cf. United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 54, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992) ("A complaint about the quality or adequacy of the evidence can always be recast as a complaint that the... presentation was 'incomplete' or'misleading' "). We therefore conclude that § 314(d) bars Cuozzo's efforts to attack the Patent Office's determination to institute inter partes review in this case. III Cuozzo further argues that the Patent Office lacked the legal authority to issue its regulation requiring the agency, when conducting an inter partes review, to give a patent claim "its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears." 37 CFR § 42.100(b). Instead, Cuozzo contends that the Patent Office should, like the courts, give claims their "ordinary meaning... as understood by a person of skill in the art." Phillips, 415 F.3d, at 1314. The statute, however, contains a provision that grants the Patent Office authority to issue "regulations... establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter." 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(4). The Court of Appeals held that this statute gives the Patent Office the legal authority to issue its broadest reasonable construction regulation. We agree. A We interpret Congress' grant of rulemaking authority in light of our decision in Chevron, U.S.A. Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694. Where a statute is clear, the agency must follow the statute. Id., at 842-843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. But where a statute leaves a "gap" or is "ambigu [ous]," we typically interpret it as granting the agency leeway to enact rules that are reasonable in light of the text, nature, and purpose of the statute. Mead Corp., 533 U.S., at 229, 121 S.Ct. 2164 ; Chevron, U.S.A. Inc., supra, at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. The statute contains such a gap: No statutory provision unambiguously directs the agency to use one standard or the other. And the statute "express[ly]... authoriz[es] [the Patent Office] to engage in the process of rulemaking" to address that gap. Mead Corp., supra, at 229, 121 S.Ct. 2164. Indeed, the statute allows the Patent Office to issue rules "governing inter partes review," § 316(a)(4), and the broadest reasonable construction regulation is a rule that governs inter partes review. Both the dissenting judges in the Court of Appeals and Cuozzo believe that other ordinary tools of statutory interpretation, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 432, and n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987), lead to a different conclusion. The dissenters, for example, point to cases in which the Circuit interpreted a grant of rulemaking authority in a different statute, § 2(b)(2)(A), as limited to procedural rules. See, e.g., Cooper Technologies Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1335 (C.A.Fed.2008). These cases, however, as we just said, interpret a different statute. That statute does not clearly contain the Circuit's claimed limitation, nor is its language the same as that of § 316(a)(4). Section 2(b)(2)(A) grants the Patent Office authority to issue "regulations" "which... shall govern... proceedings in the Office " (emphasis added), but the statute before us, § 316(a)(4), does not refer to "proceedings"-it refers more broadly to regulations "establishing and governing inter partes review." The Circuit's prior interpretation of § 2(b)(2)(A) cannot magically render unambiguous the different language in the different statute before us. Cuozzo and its supporting amici believe we will reach a different conclusion if we carefully examine the purpose of inter partes review. That purpose, in their view, is to modify the previous reexamination procedures and to replace them with a " 'trial, adjudicatory in nature.' " Brief for Petitioner 26 (quoting Google Inc. v. Jongerius Panoramic Techs., LLC, IPR 2013-00191, Paper No. 50, p. 4 (PTAB, Feb. 13, 2014)). They point out that, under the statute, an opposing party can trigger inter partes review. Parties can engage in "discovery of relevant evidence," including "deposition[s],... affidavits or declarations" as well as anything "otherwise necessary in the interest of justice." § 316(a)(5). Parties may present "factual evidence and expert opinions" to support their arguments. § 316(a)(8). The challenger bears the burden of proving unpatentability. § 318(e). And, after oral argument before a panel of three of the Board's administrative patent judges, it issues a final written decision. §§ 6, 316(a)(10), 318. Perhaps most importantly, a decision to cancel a patent normally has the same effect as a district court's determination of a patent's invalidity. In light of these adjudicatory characteristics, which make these agency proceedings similar to court proceedings, Congress, in Cuozzo's view, must have designed inter partes review as a "surrogate for court proceedings." Brief for Petitioner 28. Cuozzo points to various sources of legislative history in support of its argument. See H.R. Rep., at 48 (Inter partes review is a "quick and cost effective alternativ[e] to litigation"); id., at 46-47 ("The Act converts inter partes reexamination from an examinational to an adjudicative proceeding"); see also S.Rep. No. 110-259, p. 20 (2008) (Inter partes review is "a quick, inexpensive, and reliable alternative to district court litigation"); 157 Cong. Rec. 3429-3430 (2011) (remarks of Sen. Kyl) ("Among the reforms that are expected to expedite these proceedings [is] the shift from an examinational to an adjudicative model"). And, if Congress intended to create a "surrogate" for court proceedings, why would Congress not also have intended the agency to use the claim construction standard that district courts apply (namely, the ordinary meaning standard), rather than the claim construction standard that patent examiners apply (namely, the broadest reasonable construction standard)? The problem with Cuozzo's argument, however, is that, in other significant respects, inter partes review is less like a judicial proceeding and more like a specialized agency proceeding. Parties that initiate the proceeding need not have a concrete stake in the outcome; indeed, they may lack constitutional standing. See § 311(a) ; cf. Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, 753 F.3d 1258, 1261-1262 (C.A.Fed.2014). As explained above, challengers need not remain in the proceeding; rather, the Patent Office may continue to conduct an inter partes review even after the adverse party has settled. § 317(a). Moreover, as is the case here, the Patent Office may intervene in a later judicial proceeding to defend its decision-even if the private challengers drop out. And the burden of proof in inter partes review is different than in the district courts: In inter partes review, the challenger (or the Patent Office) must establish unpatentability "by a preponderance of the evidence"; in district court, a challenger must prove invalidity by "clear and convincing evidence." Compare § 316(e) with Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91, 95, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011). Most importantly, these features, as well as inter partes review's predecessors, indicate that the purpose of the proceeding is not quite the same as the purpose of district court litigation. The proceeding involves what used to be called a reexamination (and, as noted above, a cousin of inter partes review, ex parte reexamination, 35 U.S.C. § 302 et seq., still bears that name). The name and accompanying procedures suggest that the proceeding offers a second look at an earlier administrative grant of a patent. Although Congress changed the name from "reexamination" to "review," nothing convinces us that, in doing so, Congress wanted to change its basic purposes, namely, to reexamine an earlier agency decision. Thus, in addition to helping resolve concrete patent-related disputes among parties, inter partes review helps protect the public's "paramount interest in seeing that patent monopolies... are kept within their legitimate scope." Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 816, 65 S.Ct. 993, 89 L.Ed. 1381 (1945) ; see H.R. Rep., at 39-40 (Inter partes review is an "efficient system for challenging patents that should not have issued"). Finally, neither the statutory language, its purpose, or its history suggest that Congress considered what standard the agency should apply when reviewing a patent claim in inter partes review. Cuozzo contends that § 301(d), explaining that the Patent Office should "determine the proper meaning of a patent claim," reinforces its conclusion that the ordinary meaning standard should apply. But viewed against a background of language and practices indicating that Congress designed a hybrid proceeding, § 301(d)'s reference to the "proper meaning" of a claim is ambiguous. It leaves open the question of which claim construction standard is "proper." The upshot is, whether we look at statutory language alone, or that language in context of the statute's purpose, we find an express delegation of rulemaking authority, a "gap" that rules might fill, and "ambiguity" in respect to the boundaries of that gap. Mead Corp., 533 U.S., at 229, 121 S.Ct. 2164 ; see Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 467 U.S., at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. We consequently turn to the question whether the Patent Office's regulation is a reasonable exercise of its rulemaking authority. B We conclude that the regulation represents a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the Patent Office. For one thing, construing a patent claim according to its broadest reasonable construction helps to protect the public. A reasonable, yet unlawfully broad claim might discourage the use of the invention by a member of the public. Because an examiner's (or reexaminer's) use of the broadest reasonable construction standard increases the possibility that the examiner will find the claim too broad (and deny it), use of that standard encourages the applicant to draft narrowly. This helps ensure precision while avoiding overly broad claims, and thereby helps prevent a patent from tying up too much knowledge, while helping members of the public draw useful information from the disclosed invention and better understand the lawful limits of the claim. See § 112(a) ; Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129, 189 L.Ed.2d 37 (2014) ; see also In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (C.A.Fed.1984). For another, past practice supports the Patent Office's regulation. See 77 Fed.Reg Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioners, defendants in a class action, sought issuance of writs of mandamus from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to compel the District Court to vacate two discovery orders. The Court of Appeals refused to issue the writs. We hold that in the circumstances of this case — and particularly in light of the availability of an alternative, less extreme, path to modification of the challenged discovery orders — issuance of the writ is inappropriate. We therefore affirm. I Seven prisoners in the custody of the Department of Corrections of the State of California filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of themselves and “on behalf of all adult male felons who now are, as well as all adult male felons who in the future will be, in the custody of the California Department of Corrections, whether confined in an institution operated by the Department or on parole.” App. 370. Among the defendants in the action are petitioners in this case: the individual members of the California Adult Authority, the Administrative Officer of the California Adult Authority, and the Director of Corrections of the State of California. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges substantial constitutional violations in the manner in which the California Adult Authority carries out its function of determining the length and conditions of punishment for convicted criminal offenders. In the course of discovery, plaintiffs submitted requests for the production of a number of documents pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 34. Petitioners’ subsequent two petitions for writs of mandamus were concerned with two classes of documents that were part of these requests. The first class, part of a series of requests first made in June 1973, and which will be referred to here as the “Adult Authority files,” is generally composed of the personnel files of all members and employees of the Adult Authority, all Adult Authority documents relating to its past, present, or future operation, and all memoranda written by the Chairman of the Adult Authority within the preceding five years. The second class of documents with which we are concerned was first requested by plaintiffs in November 1973, and will be referred to here as the “prisoners’ files.” Plaintiffs requested the opportunity to examine the files of every twentieth inmate at each California Department of Corrections institution, App. 234; the class of documents, therefore, is composed of the correctional files of a sample of the prisoners in the custody of the California' Department of Corrections. When presented with the request for the Adult Authority files, petitioners objected, claiming that the files were irrelevant, confidential, and privileged, and suggesting that they should not be required to turn over the files to plaintiffs without prior in camera review by the District Court to evaluate the claims of privilege. Plaintiffs moved, pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 37, for an order compelling discovery. App. 76. The District Court referred the matter to a Magistrate for findings and recommendations, and the Magistrate recommended that the District Court order production of the Adult Authority files without undertaking an in camera inspection of the files. The District Court accepted the Magistrate’s recommendations and ordered the production of the documents. Seeking to limit distribution of the personnel files of the Adult Authority members and their employees, however, the District Court issued a protective order limiting the number of people associated with the plaintiffs who could examine those documents: “[N]o personnel file of any member of the Adult Authority, hearing representative or executive officer, nor any copy of any of its contents, shall be shown to any person except counsel of record for the plaintiffs and no more than a total of two investigators designated by such counsel, and then only to the extent necessary to the conduct of this action.” Pet. for Cert. xvi. Dissatisfied with the District Court’s ruling, petitioners filed a petition for a writ of mandamus under 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a), requesting the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to vacate the District Court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery. The Court of Appeals denied the petition in an opinion filed on January 17, 1975. 511 F. 2d 192. It concluded first that since “the question of relevancy ‘is to be more loosely construed at the discovery stage than at the trial,’ 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2008 at 41 (1970),” issuance of the writ on the grounds of the asserted irrelevance of the documents in question was inappropriate. Id., at 196. According to the Court of Appeals, discovery of the documents was part of “a proper line of attack” in the underlying lawsuit. Ibid. The court went on to observe that petitioners had no absolute privilege that would allow them to avoid production of the documents at issue. The court did recognize, however, the existence of a qualified common-law governmental privilege “encompassing and referred to sometimes as the official or state secret privilege,” id., at 198, that could conceivably cover the requested documents. But relying on this Court’s decision in United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1 (1953), the Court of Appeals indicated that because the assertions of privilege were not personally made by high-level officials of the California Adult Authority and because the assertions of privilege were lacking in what it saw to be the requisite specificity, issuance of the writ on grounds of privilege was inappropriate: “Neither the Chairman of the [Adult] Authority nor the Director of Corrections nor any official of these agencies asserted, in person or writing, any privilege in the district court. “The claiming official must ' “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” ’ [United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S., at 8 n. 20, quoting from Duncan v. Cammell, Laird & Co., [1942] A. C. 624, 638,] and state with specificity the rationale of the claimed privilege. . . . “In [this] suit, petitioners’ counsel merely raised a blanket objection covering any and all documents in request numbers 7, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21 and 22. Formally claiming a privilege should involve specifying which documents or class of documents are privileged and for what reasons, especially where the nature of the requested documents does not reveal an obviously privileged matter. . . . “In sum, the petition fails to show such an [sic] usurpation by the district court that warrants the extraordinary remedy of writ of mandamus.” 511 F. 2d, at 198-199. A similar course was followed with regard to the requests for the prisoners’ files. When petitioners, asserting grounds of privilege, objected to the requests, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production which the District Court referred for findings and recommendations to a Magistrate. The Magistrate recommended that petitioners be required to produce up to 200 prisoner files subject to a protective order “that would restrict examination and inspection of inmate files to attorneys for plaintiffs and for their use only in connection with this lawsuit.” Pet. for Cert. xl. The District Court accepted the Magistrate’s recommendation, but added to the recommended protective order a requirement that no prisoner's file be turned over for examination without the inmate’s consent. Id., at xxxi, xxxiii. Petitioners then filed a petition for mandamus which the Court of Appeals denied by order and without opinion on December 18, 1974. Id., at xxiii. Petitioners sought review in this Court of the denial of both petitions. We granted certiorari. 421 U. S. 987. (1975). II The remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations. Will v. United States, 389 U. S. 90, 95 (1967); Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U. S. 379, 382-385 (1953); Ex parte Fahey, 332 U. S. 258, 259 (1947). As we have observed, the writ “has traditionally been used in the federal courts only 'to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.’ ” Will v. United States, supra, at 95, quoting Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U. S. 21, 26 (1943). And, while we have not limited the use of mandamus by an unduly narrow and technical understanding of what constitutes a matter of “jurisdiction,” Will v. United States, supra, at 95, the fact still remains that “only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial 'usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.” Ibid. Our treatment of mandamus within the federal court system as an extraordinary remedy is not without good reason. As we have recognized before, mandamus actions such as the one involved in the instant case “have the unfortunate consequence of making the [district court] judge a litigant, obliged to obtain personal counsel or to leave his defense to one of the litigants [appearing] before him” in the underlying case. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, supra, at 384-385, quoting Ex parte Fahey, supra, at 260. More importantly, particularly in an era of excessively crowded lower court dockets, it is in the interest of the fair and prompt administration of justice to discourage piecemeal litigation. It has been Congress’ determination since the Judiciary Act of 1789 that as a general rule “appellate review should be postponed . . . until after final judgment has been rendered by the trial court.” Will v. United States, supra, at 96; Parr v. United States, 351 U. S. 513, 520-521 (1956). A judicial readiness to issue the writ of mandamus in anything less than an extraordinary situation would run the real risk of defeating the very policies sought to be furthered by that judgment of Congress. As a means of implementing the rule that the writ will issue only in extraordinary circumstances, we have set forth various conditions for its issuance. Among these are that the party seeking issuance of the writ have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires, Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., supra, at 26, and that he satisfy “the burden of showing that [his] right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable.’ ” Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, supra, at 384, quoting United States v. Duell, 172 U. S. 576, 582 (1899); Will v. United States, supra, at 96. Moreover, it is important to remember that issuance of the writ is in large part a matter of discretion with the court to which the petition is addressed. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U. S. 104, 112 n. 8 (1964); Parr v. United States, supra, at 520. See also Technitrol, Inc. v. McManus, 405 F. 2d 84 (CA8 1968), cert. denied, 394 U. S. 997 (1969); Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F. 2d 949 (CA9 1968). When looked at in the framework of these factors, it would appear that the actions of the Court of Appeals in this case should be affirmed. What petitioners are seeking here is not a declaration that the documents in question are absolutely privileged and that plaintiffs can never have access to any of them. On the contrary, petitioners request only that “production of the confidential documents not be compelled without a prior informed determination by the district court that plaintiffs’ need for them in the action below outweighs their confidentiality.” Brief for Petitioners 77-78. Petitioners ask in essence only that the District Court review the challenged documents in camera before passing on whether each one individually should or should not be disclosed. But the Court of Appeals’ opinion dealing with the Adult Authority files did not foreclose the possible necessity of such in camera review. Its denial of the writ was based largely on the grounds that the governmental privilege had not been asserted personally by anyone eligible to assert it, and that it had not been asserted with the requisite specificity. The court apparently left open the opportunity for petitioners to return to the District Court, assert the privilege more specifically and through responsible officials, and then have their request for an in camera review of the materials by the District Court reconsidered in a different light: “Since there may be information in the requested documents which should be protected, the petitioners may assert a privilege to a particular document- or class of documents, and perhaps seek in camera inspection, at the time the documents are discovered in the district court.” 511 F. 2d, at 198-199. Petitioners contend that by denying the petition for mandamus the Court of Appeals has afforded them no remedy at all. To the contrary, we read the above-quoted language of the opinion as providing petitioners an avenue far short of mandamus to achieve precisely the relief they seek. To the extent that the opinion below might be regarded as ambiguous, we are fortified in our reading of it by a recognition of the serious consequences which could flow from an unwarranted failure to grant petitioners the opportunity to have the documents reviewed by the trial judge in camera before being compelled to turn them over. Petitioners’ claims of privilege rest in large part on the notion that turning over the requested documents would result in substantial injury to the State’s prison-parole system by unnecessarily chilling the free and uninhibited exchange of ideas between staff members within the system, by causing the unwarranted disclosure and consequent drying up of confidential sources, and in general by unjustifiably compromising the confidentiality of the system’s records and personnel files. In fight of the potential seriousness of these considerations and in light of the fact that the weight to be accorded them will inevitably vary with the nature of the specific documents in question, it would seem that an in camera review of the documents is a relatively costless and eminently worthwhile method to insure that the balance between petitioners’ claims of irrelevance and privilege and plaintiffs’ asserted need for the documents is correctly struck. Indeed, this Court has long held the view that in camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of dealing with claims of governmental privilege. E. g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 706 (1974); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1 (1953). Insofar as discovery of the prisoners’ files is concerned, it is true that the Court of Appeals’ order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus with regard to those files was issued without any statement of reasons for the denial. However, there is no reason to think that by its order the Court of Appeals meant to foreclose petitioners from following precisely the same avenue with regard to the prisoners’ files as it gave them the opportunity to follow with regard to the Adult Authority files. We are thus confident that the Court of Appeals did in fact intend to afford the petitioners the opportunity to apply for and, upon proper application, receive in camera review. Accordingly the orders of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. So ordered. Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The seven prisoners and the class they represent will be referred to here as “plaintiffs.” The documents were specifically described in plaintiffs’ requests numbered 7,14, 15, 18, 20, 21, and 22: “7. All files, including all personnel files, which are maintained by the Adult Authority or by the Department of Corrections, or by any officer or employee thereof, with respect to each member, each hearing representative, and the Executive Officer of the Adult Authority.” “14. Each report submitted by any member, hearing representative, Executive Officer, or any other employee or official of the Adult Authority . . . .” “15. All written statements written or delivered by any member or hearing representative or the Executive Officer of the Adult Authority during the past 5 years favoring, opposing, or in any way commenting upon bills or other legislation or legislative proposal pending in the U. S. House of Representatives, the Senate of the United States, or the California Legislature.” “18. All written proposals for any change whatsoever in the organization or operation of, qualifications for, or substantive criteria and procedures to be employed by the Adult Authority . . . .” “20. All memoranda written by the Chairman of the Adult Authority during the past 5 years, no matter to whom sent, including without limitation memoranda sent to other government organizations, agencies or officials, or to other members, hearing representatives, officials or employees of the Adult Authority.” “21. All documents in effect on November 15, 1972 which pertain to any Policy Statement or Resolution issued by the Adult Authority, including without limitation any file maintained on any Resolution or Policy Statement and all such documents executed or issued subsequent to that date.” “22. All documents, however formal or informal, issued during the past calendar year, which concern the Adult Authority’s adoption of new policies, procedures, criteria, and the like, to be followed by members, hearing representatives, officials and employees . . . .” App. 52-56. Title 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a) provides: “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” While it has not yet come to trial, there have been additional developments in the underlying case during the pendency of the instant action before this Court. Since none of these developments are relevant to the resolution of the issue before us, we simply summarize them. Subsequent to the filing of the petition for certiorari in the instant case, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the underlying action in which they added allegations which led petitioners in turn to request the appointment of a three-judge District Court to hear the case. See 28 U. S. C. § 2281. The single judge then hearing the case certified it to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as one appearing to require the convening of a three-judge court. The Chief Judge appointed the three members of the court on October 28, 1975, several days before oral argument was held in the instant case. But soon thereafter plaintiffs amended their complaint once again. This subsequent amendment made the convening of a three-judge court appear unnecessary and the three-judge court dissolved itself, remanding the entire ease to the single judge originally assigned to the case. Thus, as the matter now stands, the underlying action is being heard by a single-judge District Court. Subsequent to our grant of certiorari but before oral argument, plaintiffs represented to this Court that they “no longer seek any of the documents which are the subject of this appeal, because the trial of [the underlying] case in District Court will be completed before this Court is able to decide [the] issues before it.” Memorandum of Respondents Concerning Mootness of Pending Matter 1-2. They therefore suggested that we hold this case moot. Plaintiffs never advised the District Court that they did not want the documents. We deferred decision on the suggestion of mootness until after oral argument. However, at oral argument counsel for plaintiffs stated that, because the trial date for the underlying action had been substantially delayed, they had changed their minds and did indeed want the documents. Tr. of Oral Arg. 38, 40-41. While no papers were filed here formally withdrawing the suggestion of mootness, plaintiffs’ representations at oral argument, combined with the fact that the trial of the underlying action has not yet taken place, leave us with no indication that this case is moot. The use of extraordinary writs aside, it is only in narrowly defined circumstances, see 28 U. S. C. § 1292, that the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeals extends to interlocutory orders. See Metros v. United States District Court for Dist. of Colo., 441 F. 2d 313 (CA10 1971). See United States Board of Parole v. Merhige, 487 F. 2d 25 (CA4 1973), cert. denied, 417 U. S. 918 (1974). Petitioners also assert, citing Ford Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana, 323 U. S. 459 (1945), and Edelman v. Jordan, 415.U. S. 651 (1974), that discovery of material which is actually the property of the State or its agencies is limited by the Eleventh Amendment. In view of our resolution of this case and the fact that petitioners did not raise this issue either in the discovery proceedings in the District Court or in their petition for mandamus to the Court of Appeals we need not reach this issue. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea